this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
-3 points (48.2% liked)

World News

32889 readers
459 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Par for the course.

[–] mholiv 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  1. The poster who submitted this has some sort of pro South China Morning Post (SCMP) agenda. So this post is likely some sort of attempt to normalize that newspaper.

  2. I personally want Russia to lose their imperialist war and I want Trump to lose his election, but even with my biases this article is a huge stretch.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If you're going to condemn a source, please provide evidence of cases where they have misreported in the past on similar issues.

For example, you could point to the New York Times' article by Anat Schwartz as evidence that the New York Times has pro-Israel bias.

[–] mholiv 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

i am not commenting on the source. Just pointing out a strange pattern of behavior that I think should be noted. If look around on Lemmy you will see certain accounts that are weirdly into very specific sites.

If you look at the original posters account history you will see the same “very into a specific site” pattern.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Lol that's like asking for evidence that the daily mail is a tabloid.

NYT is just a mouthpiece of the US empire, but SCMP is the official forum for china to troll english language speakers.

[–] coffeebiscuit -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Really? Citing MBFC? What are you going to do next, ask an LLM what it thinks?

If you want to judge your media consumption off of some guy with no pictures online, no public interviews, and a "strong grasp of the scientific process" gained through (supposedly) a physiology degree and half a communications degree, be my guest. Just don't launder it's reliability here.

[–] coffeebiscuit -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ad Fontes reports SCMP's reliability as 41.56, which is higher than the Washington Post (39.42) and on par with the New York Times (42.00), Al Jazeera (41.55), and USA Today (41.27). Ad Fontes ranks it lower than institutions like the BBC (44.72) or NPR (43.49) as well as newswire services like Reuters (45.62), AFP (47.15), and Associated Press (45.64).

Your other references are Wikipedia and Reddit. Are you sure you don't want to cite what Google Gemini says as well?

Edit: for reference, Ad Fontes puts FOX News at a 35.49, MSNBC at a 34.39, and the New York Post at a 32.98.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The poster who submitted this has some sort of pro South China Morning Post (SCMP) agenda. So this post is likely some sort of attempt to normalize that newspaper.

Lmfao

[–] mholiv 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People can look at your post history and judge for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I see you're new to news outlets.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think they're new to people posting things in general lmao

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There is a point to be made though about reading too many things from the same outlet ig, even if it's generally reliable.

They could've just said that instead of being weirdly condescending about it, when not being an active user themselves.