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 🤦
PTB. Anyone who knows better is aware that MBFC is extremely biased, their ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. Lund doesn't care and instead chooses to believe their word as gospel. It might even be intentional, Lund has shown in his behaviors and how he moderates a strong conservative and pro-zionist bias, which is concerning to say the least. Might be best to stay away from the communities he moderates.
He would gladly censor anything he disagrees with as a liberal who didn't like black people standing up for their rights to not be publicly executed.
Jordanlund is a big ol bitch.
Weekly reminder that Jordan Lund is the same piece of shit Zionist redditor that hates BLM because protests are too loud and inconvenience him. The dude is a republican shitstain.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
PTB. Lund needs to leave Portland and see the real world lmao
Does Chicago count? Las Vegas? Los Angeles? Seattle? San Diego? San Francisco? Cupertino? Laguna Beach? Memphis was interesting. Not counting "airport only" trips like Denver, Atlanta, or Salt Lake City. Forgot Kona/Kailua... that one was a long time ago now...
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
But anyone who isn't a moron knows that MBFC is an incredibly biased source...... Right?
Literally they make it so obvious
It's my one grouse with the Tesseract ui, that they grab MBFC ratings for every post linking an external site and highlight it. It's not the awesome feature you seem to think it is, Patrick
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.
It's in the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines: Absolutely under no circumstances should you reference Wikipedia as a reliable source, it needs to be something external, ideally something with some expertise, because if you never check yourself from outside, you can believe literally anything because you believe it just because at some point it made its way into your little collection, and self-referential loops are bad.
Meanwhile MBFC's rating for MBFC: 10/10 bro
Well there’s a lot of morons on Lemmy.
Yes, but I forgive all of you for disagreeing with me sometimes. I can't expect perfection.
Just obedience when the revolution kicks off.
Christ on a bike.
I have a hard time taking seriously anything or anyone who says “Far-Left Biased” (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? 🤷
They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a ‘small minority’ of users that had a problem with it. It wasn’t 90/10, but it wasn’t 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.
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!
TIL Mint Press News.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
MintPress News supported former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and the governments of Russia and Iran.[3][4]
The editor had investors, who Muhawesh claimed were "retired businesspeople", but she would not name them
Soon afterward, Brian Lambert of MinnPost wrote an article following up on Burke's challenge to find out where MintPress's money came from. He reported that emails to them went unanswered, their phone was disconnected, and the original office address in Plymouth, Minnesota, "haven't been valid in well over a year". While MintPress listed 20 of its writers, Lambert wrote it did not indicate where the money was "coming from to pay any of these people".[16]
MintPress News has reposted content from Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik,[25][26] and is listed as a "partner" of PeaceData, a Russian fake news site run by the Internet Research Agency.[27][28][29] A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the "Russian web of disinformation,"[30][31] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.[32] MintPress News defended Russia's invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine's post-revolution government was "illegitimate".[33]
Sounds like YDI. MBFC is horrible of course, but it sounds like in this case they got it right (somehow focusing in one of the only things Mint Press gets right, being "anti-Israel", presumably as a performative cover so they'll fit in better among other general left wing news. Which of course triggered MBFC, which is part of the whole reason why it's clever for them to include a whole bunch of "Israel's the bad guys" in among the "Russia's the good guys.")
With those standards basically all mainstream US media should be banned for publishing Israeli and US propaganda that defends their genocide on the Palestinians
You can follow sources on mint press. It's work and I don't read every article from there or from there. It's not rocket science, just work and what I've read had checked out.
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
Nobody shielded me. People don't get banned just because "1000 people" harp on it. If the person follows the rules of the community, then they should be allowed to stay.
Also, about the OP's example. He deserved it. Because mint press sucks. But talking about me, in this thread if off topic. I had nothing to do with this OP.
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.
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 there’s 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.
For !world@lemmy.world if you look at the rule, it's that opinion based articles "MAY" be removed, they aren't just automatically removed because they're opinion.
As a rule, I don't have a beef with opinion articles as long as they are informative and fact based. If they go off the rails into "Well, Ukraine shouldn't have antagonized Russia!" or some such, I'll remove it for misinfornation, not because it's opinion.
His shameless bias has been throughly exposed ... Block the politics and news communities on world folks...
Deny the parasite engagement, let him create a Zionist echo chamber lol
PTB, not a shocker.
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.
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.
It’s 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.
YDI. Mint press sucks.
Also, ya know, you guys can stop talking about me in this thread now. I'm not the mod that OP is talking about. I had nothing to do with it. Thanks! :)
MintPress News?
Yeah. YDI.
Hey, I agree with you for once! OP deserved it.
You're putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.
To be clear, I DON'T CARE who wrote the article. Shitty sources don't deserve the traffic.
It could be a nobel prize winner, if it's on a questionable source, it's getting removed.
Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.
Edit If you CAN'T find a better source on the same story, it's an opportunity to step back ask ask why...
You're putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.
Nope. I'm defending the ARTICLE, which has nothing to do with the more reasonable reasons to distrust Mintpress
To be clear, I DON'T CARE who wrote the article.
You REALLY should. Sometimes great journalists don't have the luxury of being picky about who publishes their work.
The post is about the article and, other than not fawning over Israel, the article doesn't exemplify any of the "offenses" MBFC accuses it of.
Shitty sources don't deserve the traffic.
Great articles do. If anything, limiting access to the good things an otherwise questionable publisher posts reduces their incentive to publish more of that kind and less clickbaity mis/disinformation.
It could be a nobel prize winner, if it's on a questionable source, it's getting removed
That's 100% grade A horseshit and against the REASON to have the rule in the first place. It would behoove you to reconsider such an arbitrarily rigid approach.
Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.
Take off your scolding cap and stop censoring good articles for arbitrary reasons.
Edit If you CAN'T find a better source on the same story, it's an opportunity to step back ask ask why...
If it had been an opinion piece or breaking news making questionable claims, sure. This is neither of that and well-sourced, though, so would be more akin to dismissing a movie for being an exclusive of a streaming service you don't like.
You shielded universalmonk and routinely banned other people for minor insults
YDI, you broke rules you got the post removed, I don't see anything wrong