Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?
Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news (“Israel ‘’‘’‘‘tests’’‘’‘’’ ceasefire”) to fox news.
What a shit take. You’re information hygiene has to be completely cooked to defend tabloids like this. This is an objectively poor source that’s basically just the Daily Mail 2.0 that pumps out clickbait.
This article is reporting on the same thing, but it is so much better:
I’m criticizing a shitty tabloid that runs on clickbait and lacks both credibility and objectivity, and your response is to post some guy with a shitty blog? LMAO. Just because some shmuck out there is appealing to your confirmation biases that doesn’t make their articles accurate, objective, or credible. What kind of a standard is that? The BCC for all their fault actually have some level of journalistic standards. The article they posted on this is objectively better. The BCC article actually matches what other credible news sources are publishing. You can go to Reuters or AP or whatever, and see very similar articles.
Is it a lack of self-awareness? Denial? Or just DARVO? It’s an extraordinary act of mental gymnastics in any case. Some people have really taken the plunge into this “post-truth” thing.
The BBC article is objectively better. What ironic, is that you’re the one doing the mental gymnastics. I’m criticism this source on it’s merits and you’re going out of your way to defend it because it feeds into your confirmation bias. You liking what they post is not a mark of their quality, they’re still a crappy source. One look at their about page should tell you that much.
There’s no irony. I’m not married to the BCC. I’m merely pointing out that they’re a genuine news organization with journalistic standards and the crappy blog you posted is not. That’s not a controversial statement. The article they produced on this story actually has information, details, and sources… you know like a good source should. The Canary article is as shitty as it gets. It literally only has 4 sentences and a clickbait headlines. Of which, only 2 sentences are actually relevant to the story, and they’re both ripped off from the Irish Mirror article that they linked. This shitty article can’t even be called a summary of that article, which is a legit article that has actual reporting.
The Irish Mirror article actually provides context, testimonies, primary sources, and so on. Which begs the question, why not post that article in the first place? It’s clearly a much better source and a much higher quality article. Why is lemmy littered with fucking The Canary spam everywhere? Why doesn’t this place have higher standards for articles and sources? That’s poor information hygiene, that’s what I’m criticizing… and for some reason that’s what you’re offended by for some reason.
I’m sorry, the “crappy blog” that is Owen Jones’s dropsite? Gtfo, you obviously don’t know that the hell you’re talking about. I’m not going to engage with someone arguing in bad faith.
Oh my goddd!!! Owen Jones??? How could I be how foolish and not know who that is? Silly me, of course it’s Owen Jones on Substack.
Now Substack is a site that’s notorious for having its userbase be mostly political grifters, but that can’t possibly apply to the great and almighty Owen Jones.
But first, who the fuck is Owen Jones? You can’t possibly expect people to know random schmuck grifters that you fangirl over.
Owen Jones (born 8 August 1984)[2] is a left-wing British newspaper columnist, commentator, journalist, author and political activist.[3] He writes a column for The Guardian and contributes to the New Statesman, Tribune, and The National[4] and was previously a columnist for The Independent. He has two weekly web series, The Owen Jones Show and The Owen Jones Podcast.
Well well well, looky what we got here. It looks like I was right all along. Now explain to me again how this guy is supposed to invalidate my points about the quality of sources and journalistic standards? If anything you’re proving me right here.
No, the only people who call information hygiene “bias in favor of Israel” are those who lack elementary levels of critical thinking. Just because you brainlessly accept shitty sources because they feed into your confirmation bias, that doesn’t mean others do. The Canary is an objectively crappy source. They literally spell out in their about page that this site is meant to be activist magazine, not a genuine news source. It lacks credibility, objectivity, and basic journalistic standards. It’s literally a British tabloid that run on click bait, like what are we even doing?
Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?
Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news (“Israel ‘’‘’‘‘tests’’‘’‘’’ ceasefire”) to fox news.
What a shit take. You’re information hygiene has to be completely cooked to defend tabloids like this. This is an objectively poor source that’s basically just the Daily Mail 2.0 that pumps out clickbait.
This article is reporting on the same thing, but it is so much better:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8pz5nm6r8o
Supporting shitty tabloids doesn’t become okay just because they pump out headlines you agree with, the point is the quality.
Your shitty article do not say they was kidnapped . Bbc police language of anti genocide people.
https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel
I’m criticizing a shitty tabloid that runs on clickbait and lacks both credibility and objectivity, and your response is to post some guy with a shitty blog? LMAO. Just because some shmuck out there is appealing to your confirmation biases that doesn’t make their articles accurate, objective, or credible. What kind of a standard is that? The BCC for all their fault actually have some level of journalistic standards. The article they posted on this is objectively better. The BCC article actually matches what other credible news sources are publishing. You can go to Reuters or AP or whatever, and see very similar articles.
They was kidnapped, it a fact. BBC is shitty and it’s standard is shitty.
https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel
This is the kind of unintelligent response that I expect from someone who gets their information from randos running blogs.
links to a BBC article reporting on Israel
Is it a lack of self-awareness? Denial? Or just DARVO? It’s an extraordinary act of mental gymnastics in any case. Some people have really taken the plunge into this “post-truth” thing.
The BBC article is objectively better. What ironic, is that you’re the one doing the mental gymnastics. I’m criticism this source on it’s merits and you’re going out of your way to defend it because it feeds into your confirmation bias. You liking what they post is not a mark of their quality, they’re still a crappy source. One look at their about page should tell you that much.
The irony levels are through the roof, because you’re doing what you claim I’m doing, and not doing what you claim you’re doing:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
You’re defending the crappy source. You’re not looking at the merits of your source.
There’s no irony. I’m not married to the BCC. I’m merely pointing out that they’re a genuine news organization with journalistic standards and the crappy blog you posted is not. That’s not a controversial statement. The article they produced on this story actually has information, details, and sources… you know like a good source should. The Canary article is as shitty as it gets. It literally only has 4 sentences and a clickbait headlines. Of which, only 2 sentences are actually relevant to the story, and they’re both ripped off from the Irish Mirror article that they linked. This shitty article can’t even be called a summary of that article, which is a legit article that has actual reporting.
The Irish Mirror article actually provides context, testimonies, primary sources, and so on. Which begs the question, why not post that article in the first place? It’s clearly a much better source and a much higher quality article. Why is lemmy littered with fucking The Canary spam everywhere? Why doesn’t this place have higher standards for articles and sources? That’s poor information hygiene, that’s what I’m criticizing… and for some reason that’s what you’re offended by for some reason.
I’m sorry, the “crappy blog” that is Owen Jones’s dropsite? Gtfo, you obviously don’t know that the hell you’re talking about. I’m not going to engage with someone arguing in bad faith.
Oh my goddd!!! Owen Jones??? How could I be how foolish and not know who that is? Silly me, of course it’s Owen Jones on Substack.
Now Substack is a site that’s notorious for having its userbase be mostly political grifters, but that can’t possibly apply to the great and almighty Owen Jones.
But first, who the fuck is Owen Jones? You can’t possibly expect people to know random schmuck grifters that you fangirl over.
Well well well, looky what we got here. It looks like I was right all along. Now explain to me again how this guy is supposed to invalidate my points about the quality of sources and journalistic standards? If anything you’re proving me right here.
More bad faith nonsense. You’ve had your chance.
What you seem to call “information hygiene” most others call “bias in favor of Israel”. Do you earnestly use the term “sterile street” too?
No, the only people who call information hygiene “bias in favor of Israel” are those who lack elementary levels of critical thinking. Just because you brainlessly accept shitty sources because they feed into your confirmation bias, that doesn’t mean others do. The Canary is an objectively crappy source. They literally spell out in their about page that this site is meant to be activist magazine, not a genuine news source. It lacks credibility, objectivity, and basic journalistic standards. It’s literally a British tabloid that run on click bait, like what are we even doing?