World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it's the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, "most" politicians didn't back it - this is exactly where you're falling short. I'm not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - "of course they supported it, everyone did!" I'm supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let's do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It'd be pretty silly to do otherwise "Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!" Lol.
Edit: I'd also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is "Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides" is your argument for their being unbiased?
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
Edit: You might also actually read some of their articles about invading Iraq.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified
You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.
... Proceeds to not do so at all.
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
It's okay to admit that you just assumed you'd dislike the coverage and haven't actually read it.
We can move on to my opinions on the Economist's Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government's decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it's inexcusable and proves my point.
I didn't say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn't a crazy position.
I have no idea how this validates or invalidates the Economist. I get that you think this is some sort of gotchya but it's pretty darned weak.
Stillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll waiting for your critique of the Gaza coverage. (I know, silly to ask, it's never going to come.)
Have a pleasant new years.
Actually it was crazy to everyone who didn't exist in the bubble of US and UK elites that The Economists coexists in. Way to prove my point again.
It's "darned weak" for me to point out that The Economist is biased in the exact way you keep revealing yourself to be lol? Who could've questioned the Iraq War, I mean it only inspired the biggest single day global protest in human history!
Admit you were caught with your pants down, that you insisted on outsourcing indepedent or critical engagement with press to a subjective barometer website and that your particular range of political and historical knowledge is quite limited and should be expanded.