Jordan Lund at it again
Jordan Lund at it again
Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable š¤¦
wikipedia lists mint as an unreliable source, of course, I don't doubt the article, its clear that he's using it as an excuse to take down the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend
PTB. Lund needs to leave Portland and see the real world lmao
The community rules cleary states that opinion pieces and unreliable sources are subject to removal. You posted the epitome of an unreliable source. This is just enforcing the rules.
YDI.
It's not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
Itās not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
But the website that is publishing it, isn't. There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews ... doesn't mean those sources should be allowed.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article. Link to that instead.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
There is no logic to that statement.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source. But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
This is the mod who shielded UniversalMonk for months and only banned them once like 1000 people loudly harped on it for weeks. Fuck that guy
But anyone who isn't a moron knows that MBFC is an incredibly biased source...... Right?
Literally they make it so obvious
They think that because it claims to be accurate, therefore it is. No fact checking of themselves, no matter how it is completely wrong and treats liberal media as far left, and fox news are center right, it's the godsend for the mods to remove anything they dislike.
Christ on a bike.
I have a hard time taking seriously anything or anyone who says āFar-Left Biasedā (esp. with that capitalization) unironically.
Lazy PTB on the grounds of (maybe mindlessly) parroting Fox News rhetoric instead of researching themselves.
Oh i just realized that stupid bias check bot has been gone for a while. Everyone hated it so i guess it was killed or blocked at some point? Anyone know the story?
Personally I haven't seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? š¤·
They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a āsmall minorityā of users that had a problem with it. It wasnāt 90/10, but it wasnāt 50/50 either.
Oh, and they only held the vote after jordanlund claimed he would get demodded by the admins if he removed the bot. And when someone pinged an admin they said they had no idea how he got that impression, lol.
Yeah people kept complaining so eventually they just quietly turned it off
There was a public vote on whether to eliminate it or not from the .world news and politics communities, and the vote to remove won, thankfully!
I lack any context but if the rule is against questionable sources and a mod is able to document that the source is questionable then surely there other news outlets are reporting on that too that you can use. Unless thereās a big conspiracy against that.
No conspiracy required. The Celtic fans' antifascist and pro-Palestinian position is not news, so I see no reason to expect non-left outlets to report an equivalent opinion piece. In fact, this second image was reported in news 9 years ago[1].
That said, Manufacturing Consent is an excellent introduction to why mass media bias has emerged.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/love-from-glasgow-to-gaza-why-celtic-fc-fans-support-palestine/289198/
I was going to say that it's probably just an unsourced opinion-analysis piece, but no it's pretty thorough, even though it is relatively light news (and not an investigation despite the tag). The site doesn't seem unreliable to me.
Avoiding non-newsworthy content might be a part of intention behind the rule but whether that makes sense depends on how you want to run a community. I try to make an effort to not assume ill intent (not always successful) and this just looks like a mod is using external list not to be critiqued for arbitrary choices and that only works if no exceptions are made.
We should really start those dashboards of power tripping per mod
As usual
It's kinda of sad that these are still not just called "news" but have to use "world" or "globalnews" because it otherwise is assumed that it is just US news.
Yes, same for !politics@lemmy.world which is restricted to US politics
I'm all for the increased federation of news from .world and .ml to limit the censorship the mod teams enable when it doesn't paint America or Russia as the perfect golden cows.
We already know legacy media is heavily biased because it's owned by the same handful of businesses. And I understand questionable sources such as Breitbart being removed. Yet here we are.
PTB, not a shocker.
YDI, you broke rules you got the post removed, I don't see anything wrong