Looks like a case where poorly sourced article getting removed, with invitation to repost with a more reputable source… so do so with a better source. Or is the underlying article itself leaning too much towards propaganda that there is no more reputable source? and if that is the case, then is it really !news worthy?
Nah, it won’t happen because that user is infamous for posting disinformation on this site. He pretends to be a liberal doing this for the benefit of the Lemmiverse, however that logic works out.
You can tell from the post title. There’s a collection of little propagandists that do nothing other than post disinformation, immediately lash out at any slightly differing opinions, and then go whining in other communities if any mod takes any action about it.
I wonder that that said but I didn’t mean you, if that’s what you thought.
Maybe read the article and make those determinations for yourself?
I can’t for the life of me understand why this particular article is so threatening to LW !news mods. It provides valuable insight into how Facebook’s community guidelines are experienced by journalists outside of the political mainstream and has useful lessons for why and how we might do things differently in the Fediverse.
It’s not threatening anyone… I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere that the mods say or imply that. Also before anyone complain about singling people out, no, if I share anything from a non-reputable source, it’s going to get deleted, regardless of the subject. It’s about the quality of the source; the objective is to create a community sharing good trustworthy sources to improve the overall quality of content appearing on the community.
Again, you’ve been invited by the mods to repost from a more reputable source. If there aren’t any, then perhaps it is not !news worthy.
I can’t help but notice that Five singles out “lack of transparency” while ignoring “poor sourcing” and “one-sided reporting”. This is a common tactic.
Any responsible journalistic entity should be confirming their sources, and giving any accused a chance to give their own side of a story.
It’s true they’re getting very hard to find these days. I was very disappointed that even NBC the other day, reporting on the House investigation into Biden, had the gall to simply say that “the White House has not yet had a chance to comment”.
There’s a small handful of good ones still, though, depending on the niche you’re looking for. ProPublica is still an example of responsible journalism for instance.
Where besides Dave’s assessment are you sourcing your information? Isn’t it one-sided to only listen to Dave M. Van Zandt’s opinion without doing additional investigation?
The Cradle is trash though. And a defender of the Russian genocide of Ukraine.
I support Ukrainians against colonization by Russia, but I’m not threatened by journalists who cover the facts from a different perspective from mine.
Can you demonstrate your claim? I did a perfunctory search, and the stories I found involving Russia seem informative and typically even-handed based on the standards of western journalism.
You do have a valid point. When I encounter something they are reporting that interests me, it would behove me to do further checking. There are other fact checking and news comparing services, and wikipedia usually has some good background information.
Additionally, I could check an article myself to make sure they actually do include an IDF statement in addition to any pro-Palestinian sources’ statements.
Looks more like you posted a garbage source?
edit - for example. Do you consider Fox News to report a balanced view? Or GBNews? Zerohedge?
Thecradle seems like a fine source, even MBFC doesn’t actually have arguments against it other than “left leaning”.
“Balanced” is some bullshit American view of media that isn’t related to factuallity.
For what it’s worth, English Wikipedia editors reached a consensus to deprecate (ban) it for unrealiability last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#RFC:_The_Cradle
The following notes are present:
The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.
Well, there’s a whole horde of people seeking to discredit Wikipedia as well, whining as loud as they can about its bias in one direction or another.
It’s information warfare, and it’s pretty exhausting. And it’s impossible to tell who has ulterior motives and who’s just a moron. Creds to the Lemmy.world crowd for putting up with it at all.
Of course this media fact checking site is not perfect. But if your conspiracy revolves around every single well-reputed news source in the world refusing to communicate the truth… Maybe check yourself.
That’s besides the point. Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive. Posting an inoffensive news article in a forum that automatically allows the community to evaluate a 3rd party’s criticism(s) of that agencies credibility should be more than sufficient.
These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
I even agree that Cradle is shit, but to end any possibility of discussion, in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE just creates empty echo chambers
Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive.
[citation needed]
These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
Luckily then they’re not the “arbiters of truth” for the platform, eh? Just for the instance they own themselves. You are free to disagree with them, and not go to their garden parties any more. Doesn’t change that it’s their garden, and their party.
in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE
Hrm… no. I tried, and nothing about the Lemmy site says that instance owners aren’t free to moderate their sites as they see fit. In fact that they can is cited as a benefit of the system, since everyone is also free to run their own instance.
(edit)
Look, I don’t even disagree, but no need to make shit up to call admins out for. The subject matter of the topic is enough to call them out for if you’re so inclined.
Really, I need citations for a post that already provides an example? Just pick a server and look at the modlogs keyword: misinfo. Here’s a salient example:
Luckily then they’re not the “arbiters of truth” for the platform…
That’s actually a part of the problem. The complete lack of responsibility or accountability for anyone on here. Like it or not all it takes is a handful of self-righteous admins to ruin it for the entire platform. What you tout as a Good is quite the opposite in the long run.
A poorly sourced article from @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world ?? No way, I’m shocked!
“Siding with Marc Zuckerberg” is a pretty shitty argument. They may be evil but that doesn’t mean I oppose every single of their opinion.
I know MBFC is a controversial tool, but there must be some kind of moderation, otherwise you end up like !worldnews@lemmy.ml
Oh !worldnews@lemmy.ml does have moderation. The mods there are very deliberate in the things they do(n’t) allow. Woe betide you if you ever criticize certain historic (or current) authoritarian genocidal regimes.
Ask a socialist what’s wrong with Lemmy.world, they’ll give you a myriad of issues. Ask a capitalist what’s wrong with Lemmy.ml, they’ll describe Lemmy.world.
