Skip Navigation

Posts
104
Comments
36
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I think David Van Zandt has a vendetta against Philip Weiss. Racists tend to be unfeeling or feel contempt for 'lesser' racial groups, and are merely indifferent to their suffering. The most intense 'hate' in hate groups comes from the intensity of feeling racists have toward other people of their own race they perceive as 'race traitors' - who demonstrate that people who share their culture and heritage can afford empathy for the 'other' whom racists believe are unworthy of concern.

    Truthout is a reputable website, with good journalism and reporting. There's a number of other websites that report favorably on Palestinians, and don't toe Van Zandt's line that criticism of Israel and antisemitism are the same thing. They have higher 'Credibility' and 'Factual Reporting' scores than Truthout. But Truthout occasionally rehosts reporting from Mondoweiss, a site that Van Zandt has labelled as 'antisemitic,' and therefore Truthout must be punished for giving support to the most notorious enemy of Israel -- 'self-hating' Jews.

  • HuffPost was founded by four people, including Arianna Huffington, CEO of Thrive Global, and Andrew Breitbart, who also built the alt-right outlet Breitbart News. Breitbart was also instrumental in founding The Drudge Report, an early popular news site that promoted news and opinion favorable to the Republican Party, and was The Huffington Post's direct inspiration, with the focus instead on the Democratic party and 'progressive' values.

  • Voice of America (VOA) is a state media network funded by the United States of America, whose purpose is to project soft power through journalism.

    In 2005, the Washington Post reported that suspected Al-qaeda operatives were flown into Thailand to be detained and tortured. VOA's remote relay radio station in Udon Thani province has been widely suspected to be the torture site.

  • Manufacturing Consent has this to say about PBS:

    Globalization, along with deregulation and national budgetary pressures, has also helped reduce the importance of noncommercial media in country after country. This has been especially important in Europe and Asia, where public broadcasting systems were dominant (in contrast with the United States and Latin America). The financial pressures on public broadcasters has forced them to shrink or emulate the commercial systems in fund~raising and programming, and some have been fully commercialized by policy change or privatization. The global balance of power has shifted decisively toward commercial systems.

    James Ledbetter points out that in the United States, under incessant right-wing political pressure and financial stringency, "the 90s have seen a tidal wave of commercialism overtake public broadcasting," with public broadcasters" rushing as fast as they can to merge their services with those offered by commercial networks." And in the process of what Ledbetter calls the "mailing" of public broadcasting, its already modest differences from the commercial networks have almost disappeared. Most important, in their programming "they share either the avoidance or the defanging of contemporary political controversy, the kind that would bring trouble from powerful patrons."

  • Voice of America (VOA) is a state media network funded by the United States of America, whose purpose is to project soft power through journalism. In 2005, the Washington Post reported that suspected Al-qaeda operatives were flown into Thailand to be detained and tortured. VOA's remote relay radio station in Udon Thani province has been widely suspected to be the torture site.

  • MBFC claiming CNN is Left-Center, when it is owned by conservative billionaire John Malone. This is an example of MBFC's intentional distortion of the political spectrum by falsely representing it as dominated by a left-wing bias.

    An example of CNN's actual right-wing bias is when they put an obvious Trump Supporter on their recent panel of 'undecided voters'. According to Parker Molloy from The New Republic, this isn't "an isolated case of questionable representation in CNN’s voter panels. In fact, it appears to be part of a troubling pattern stretching back years." She suggests it could be "a potential willingness to mislead viewers for the sake of compelling television." - media ownership and their profit motive, and complicity of the media elite are sources of bias that MBFC does not adequately account for.

    If you want to understand how propaganda works, learn the five filters of the propaganda model.

  • Wow, you're really reaching there. I'm asking you to stop blaming women for men's problems. There's a group of people who aren't doing that, and if you don't want to be called a misogynist, follow the example of that group.

  • I think you misunderstood me. I do think men should have an analogous space. I support !mensliberation@lemmy.ca 100%.

    If you didn't misunderstand me, men don't need a space specifically for comparing their issues negatively against women's issues. That space is everywhere and anywhere, as evidenced by this discussion occurring in !asklemmy@lemmy.world and collecting overwhelmingly positive upvotes.

  • We had to shutter !twoxchromosomes@slrpnk.net because of persistent and vocal judgement by a large population of Lemmy users, many from Lemmy.World. So no, talking about issues specific to their gender is definitely not a double standard where men get the short end of the stick.

    This is why you get judged. Because you so nakedly put on display how much ignorance and little empathy you have for women's issues.

    !mensliberation@lemmy.ca exists specifically for men who understand their issues in society are intersectional with women's issues, and that solving them requires uniting to end patriarchy. Any discussion outside of that framing deserves the assumption that it's a misogynist men's pity party.

  • I support opening up vote logs to moderators in their own communities. Voting records add useful context to the nature of the exchanges happening, eg. if two people are having a back and forth, but neither is downvoting the other, it contextualizes the disagreement as less hostile.

    I don't think it's a good idea to give every new user the burden of using that information responsibly. A minority would use it to retaliate, stalk, and harass, and there would be too many of them to reasonably hold them accountable.

  • 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.

  • Is it your position that criticism of Israel should be censored? Is being pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, or anti-genocide antisemitic?

    This is the position of Media Bias/Fact Check. By endorsing their platform, you are also endorsing their radically biased re-definition of antisemitism that is being used to slander holocaust survivors and progressive Jewish voices along with truth speakers of all races and creeds.

    Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it's ironic that you're using such a biased propaganda platform to tell your readers what is credible.

    Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.