Super interesting. This source has always been ringing some kind of distant alarm bell for me, because of things that are just a tiny bit off like the examples I quoted above. I think I’ll take it out from !lefty_news@ibbit.at. I couldn’t care less about the MBFC rating, but Wikipedia’s list, I give a good bit of weight to.
I’ll leave this story up, because what the hell what’s the harm, but I think I’ll start to avoid them in the future. This is all good to know.
They do sometimes have useful and pertinent information, sure. But they also are screamingly wrong about a lot of stuff. They rate the New York Times as highly factual when they absolutely are not (“They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.”), they rate MSNBC and Al Jazeera as “mixed” which is the same as the New York Post, they put Newsweek above both of them at “mostly factual” (“We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reported rather than high due to having to make corrections on false information after publication.”)… they’re just kind of generally all over the place.
It is more or less just one guy and his subjective impressions of each source, which normally would be semi-okay even if far inferior to Wikipedia’s consensus and analysis based community approach, but that one guy also has some flagrant biases (chief among them that a source has to be pro-Israel in order to be “factual” in his world.)
Super interesting. This source has always been ringing some kind of distant alarm bell for me, because of things that are just a tiny bit off like the examples I quoted above. I think I’ll take it out from !lefty_news@ibbit.at. I couldn’t care less about the MBFC rating, but Wikipedia’s list, I give a good bit of weight to.
I’ll leave this story up, because what the hell what’s the harm, but I think I’ll start to avoid them in the future. This is all good to know.
It’s useful. They have useful and pertinent information.
I’ve seen some sensationalist stuff from the source before, have been avoiding it too.
They do sometimes have useful and pertinent information, sure. But they also are screamingly wrong about a lot of stuff. They rate the New York Times as highly factual when they absolutely are not (“They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.”), they rate MSNBC and Al Jazeera as “mixed” which is the same as the New York Post, they put Newsweek above both of them at “mostly factual” (“We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reported rather than high due to having to make corrections on false information after publication.”)… they’re just kind of generally all over the place.
It is more or less just one guy and his subjective impressions of each source, which normally would be semi-okay even if far inferior to Wikipedia’s consensus and analysis based community approach, but that one guy also has some flagrant biases (chief among them that a source has to be pro-Israel in order to be “factual” in his world.)