World Politics

764 readers

71 users here now

Political news from around the world.

No U.S, U.K, Ca, Aus, E.U politics

Posts must be related to Conflict, Politicians, Nation-states, Electoralism, or International Relations

Posts and Comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

little_cow

-13

One Step Forward for the ICC, One Leap Backward for Peace (www.lawfaremedia.org)

submitted 5 months ago by fukhueson to c/globalpolitics

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] fukhueson -6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hmm, the side bar says I should use mbfc in order to spot misinformation. Did I do it wrong?

[–] thelittleblackbird 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely, to spot misinformation you need to crosscheck reputable and trusted sources.

And no. A Blog even a good one does not have enough entity to be source of Information by itself. It could be a reputable source of opinion. But that's all, never about facts.

This is just bleaching propaganda, and if you read the news from Sud America countries, you will notice why.

[–] fukhueson -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

So you're telling me mbfc is wrong?

Edit: it's good enough to be used by fact checkers :) this is hilarious

Analysis / Bias

In review, the website publishes articles from a legal perspective related to national security issues. Articles typically feature minimal to moderate loaded language such as this: The Potential Trouble with Nominating a DNI from Trump’s Central Casting. This story is properly sourced to the President’s daily briefs and the Washington Post. All articles reviewed are properly sourced from credible media outlets such as Reuters, Associated Press, Justice.gov, and the New York Times.

Although Lawfare is known for its straight factual reporting, they also produce editorial content that frequently discusses former President Trump’s legal issues and policy that may not be constitutional. This reporting is always evidence-based. In general, Lawfare is factual and utilizes minimal personal bias as they do not take sides. They report on the law and how it impacts national security.

Failed Fact Checks

They are used as a resource for IFCN fact-checkers.

[–] thelittleblackbird 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I am telling you to be dare, and in the name of the truth to explore other narratives, stories and facts. All of it to get your own conclusions.

Be dare, the truth is just awaiting you

[–] fukhueson 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The fuck does this mean? Don't listen to highly reputable sources?

[–] thelittleblackbird 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wow, you almost got me.

26 comments and you are doing half of them just to defend your ground without the chance to accept the minimum criticism to your point of view.

You just got enough attention from my petty time.

[–] fukhueson -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I defended my ground with sources. So far you you've baselessly asserted this is propaganda because you... Don't like what it says.

Edit: this was fun, except you didn't have a funny comment at the end admitting you can't defend your position like the other user.

[–] Paragone -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I have found MediaBiasFactCheck to be .. not entirely trustworthy.

Same with Snopes.

the comment about the UN being more-trustworthy in terms of framing is dead-on.

the ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, not because of a blog-post, or because of mere-opinion, but because of an ocean-of-evidence sufficient to justify a warrant for a man's arrest.

You apparently discount that, as do many, & hold that websites are more-valid than the ICC's determination.

Good for you.

The ICC's right, in this case, in my opinion, & the opinion of many others.

_ /\ _

[–] fukhueson 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Hmm, why would a "blog" be a source for fact checkers? Someone ought to tell them they're sourcing propaganda. And maybe someone should tell Brookings that too.

The rest of your opinion is just... Your opinion. Your personal disapproval of mbfc means nothing. Unless you have another highly reputable source that supports your claim about mbfc, I'm gonna stop listening. It's simply an attempt to silence information you personally disagree with and would not like to have discussion around. You offer no evidence to support your doubt of mbfc but your own anecdotal experience. They're a widely accepted trustworthy source, even as described by their competitors.

You attack the source and not the information. This article describes a take on how this punishment may not lead to peace. No one is "discounting" anything, I don't even understand how you'd get that from what I'd said, since you're saying I discounted something.

Seems like a lot of users here want this article to say what they desire, but can't find any way to quote where it says that.