Bit of a stretch, no?
Par for the course.
BREAKING NEWS!
Biden’s current home has ties to Trump!
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
People can look at your post history and judge for themselves.
I see you’re new to news outlets.
I think they’re new to people posting things in general lmao
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.
Lotta talk from someone using big words like complacency without knowing what they mean.
Your account is almost a week old, and posts pretty much only news articles from this site, along a few other random sites with seemingly no favoritism towards any of them except for this one and not even commenting up until a day ago.
But okay, I guess you can try and gaslight everyone here into thinking that’s normal behavior somehow.
Let me make a lemmy account to only repost links to news sites all day every day for… fun?
Sure.
account is almost a week old
not even commenting up until a day ago
Friend, I think you’re replying to the wrong person lmao
Also, this user made 2 posts in 8 months lol
All I can see from your account now is 6d ago for posts and 1d ago from comments. Probably because you’re posting or commenting in communities that have been defederated…
I don’t post as frequently as you because I’m not a walking reflector service for my favorite national news agency but go off
Have you considered checking in with an eye doctor
Exactly. They get all huffy and upset and defensive, but in the end the record speaks for itself.
No matter what they say or rant about their post history shows the truth.
Fun fact. They could prove me wrong by not favoring one specific site going forward, but they won’t I suspect.
My sibling in christ I replied to you with an “Lmfao”. Is that too “huffy and upset and defensive” for you?
I’m not gonna plant my feet in any one position because there really isn’t enough info to convict per se, but I fully agree that this account is odd in their posting nature and it definitely seems like they’ve got a hard on for this site specifically but apparently not all of their “content” is showing up for me for some reason.
I’m guessing it’s because it’s in defederated communities or something like that.
Fair. I edited my last comment in this chain to be more fair. It’s a trend I noticed on Lemmy though. Very specific people are extremely enthusiastic about very specific sites. I’ve seen it for RT quite a bit as well.
-
