This is like posting articles from Russia Today to provide commentary on the Ukrainian government.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jerusalem-post/
High credibility rating.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
Low credibility rating.
Normal Lemmy comment, though, in that it’s objectively wrong, and the only real info is about the bias of the commenter.
A publication can be credible and also still be extremely biased. If a right wing publication publishes a story " black people say affirmative action is unfair" the story may be factually correct in that they found a couple black people that said it’s bad and quoted them but at its core it’s just a “people are saying” story. Like any “people are saying” story who these people are?, how many of them are their?, do they represent or have power over the people the article is implying they do? Etc. is conveniently left out.
the fact that they chose the story shows bias as well. If the only justification for calling a story news is the fact it fits your worldview than the publication is biased. The publication is responsible for reporting on stories that are relevant and effect a large amount of people. This story does not as it’s just some anecdotes reported to the IDF. If this was a large scale issue reported by independent aid organizations or shown through polling on the ground than that would be a story as it’s actually effecting a large amount of people.
That’s why MBFC reports BOTH bias and credibility.
;)
This is war, and that changes the trustworthiness and bias when reporting. Here’s a study from 2004-2008 that deals specifically with conflict reporting and bias.
“The Jerusalem Post, clearly a partisan outlet, favored the Israeli side of the conflict…”
Also, lol at conveniently moving right past the context of my comment and the inherent problems with trusting the domestic media of a country waging war and their coverage on the morality and alleged bad actions of the oppositional forces.
I understand what you’re saying. I think you understood me too.
And to your point, it’s one of the reasons only the stupids in worldnews use Al Jazeera. ;) I gave up on making your point to Lemmy LONG ago.
Yes, I understand your bullshit just fine, it’s not exactly difficult to parse. I also understand that you’re at least smart enough to realize you’re the one in the wrong here, but too embarrassed to use those exact words.
I did <3 your weak attempt to save face and turn this loss into a draw, especially at the end, so… What, so only the stupids use AJ English for coverage, but you’re one of the smarts because you use Jerusalem Post?
FYI both outlets have otherwise reliable journalism, but I wouldn’t use AJ English as a primary source for insight into the Israeli government…you know, because that’s consistent with the reasoning I already laid out.
Check the poster and the user you replied to history… there are no point of talking to them…
deleted by creator
No, you clearly don’t understand anything, my bad, you corrected me from the belief you might be able to reason.
This is like posting articles from Russia Today to provide commentary on the Ukrainian government.
That’s what we’ve been talking about the whole time. Quit projecting kid, the entire time you’ve been trying to save face. I mean it’s just sad at this point. You tried to be snarky and clever and I called you out on being an asshole, then even gave you links and facts supporting that you’re an asshole. LOL
Spew your nonsense and low-iq tripe all you want, I’m done trying to help you sport. Thank fuck there’s a blockuser function.
___
Lmao fucking jpost really
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jerusalem-post/
Is it the High Credibility rating that makes you distrust it, or does it not conform to some narrative or confirmation bias for you?
Mediabiasfactcheck is biased in its own right. People are dismissing Jpost because it’s ridiculously biased towards the Israeli right wing.
It’s literally one of the best checks around. That you want to dismiss it should trigger some self reflection about a potential information bubble you’re in…
One of the best checks because there’s no serious competition. did you even look at MBFC’s methology? They’re only “good” when you don’t actually check the nonsense they write.
I have reviewed them (methodolgies). And still maintain that they’re magnitudes better than a Lemmy kid going “nuh uh”.
I agree with you, and you are 100% correct. It’s worthwhile to review the methodologies to better understand the ratings. Some of the sties I’d never touch in a million years get high credibility, granted they note the bias, and I understand why–even if I don’t agree with all ratings.
Be careful the source.
Removed by mod
