It was not “debunked” btw. Children were murdered during the massacres, including babies.

Of course, Tankies know this, but consider it a good thing, evidently.

If you attempt to contend anything, be sure to provide evidence and reputable sources that can support you. Don’t claim anything if you can’t back it up. Use this site to help determine what’s reputable, aim for High to Very High and least biased.

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    7·
    9 days ago

    I read through it and it feels like a bit rubbish to be honest.

    They themselves say that what they do only applies to US politics, so reporting on Israel and Palestine is out of scope in the first place. But their definition of bias is also weird.

    What is even the “economic system” of a news outlet? What qualifies as “without bias” and “centrism”?

    • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPMEnglish
      43·
      9 days ago

      They themselves say that what they do only applies to US politics, so reporting on Israel and Palestine is out of scope in the first place. But their definition of bias is also weird.

      While this updated methodology reduces the influence of a strictly U.S.-centric political spectrum, it remains primarily tailored to the political landscape of the United States. This ensures that evaluations are relevant to a significant audience while acknowledging that some biases in the U.S. context may not apply exactly in other countries where terms like “Liberal” may have a different meaning. Readers should consider this when comparing sources with political systems from other countries.

      Perhaps it’s more apt to say Western than the US, but it’s still generally applicable. The part about the US is also relevant to the bias, not the factuality.

      They explain the overall definition of bias inside the methodology, where they compare the different kinds of bias to make the final definition.

      The economic system of a news outlet depends on whether that news outlet is public, private, or government. For example, the BBC doesn’t need to worry about viewership or ad revenue because it gets its funding from the government.

      You can view how they rate bias on each outlet’s page. Neutral language and fact-based reporting are the key defining factors for their bias.

      But if you don’t want to use it, you don’t have to.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        3·
        9 days ago

        The economic system of a news outlet depends on whether that news outlet is public, private, or government.

        That statement does not make sense, given the rubric is:

        -10: Communism – Advocates no corporatism, extreme regulation, and full government ownership of industries.
        -7.5: Socialism – Supports minimal corporatism, high regulation, and significant government ownership.
        -5: Democratic Socialism – Endorses reduced corporatism with strongly regulated capitalism.
        -2.5: Regulated Market Economy – Promotes moderate corporatism with balanced regulations.
        0: Centrism – Balances regulation and corporate influence without significant bias.
        +2.5: Moderately Regulated Capitalism – Leans slightly toward corporatism with moderate government intervention.
        +5: Classical Liberalism – Emphasizes moderate to high corporatism with lower regulations.
        +7.5: Libertarianism – Advocates low government intervention and high corporate influence.
        +10: Radical Laissez-Faire Capitalism – Advocates for minimal to no regulation, with the economy governed entirely by free-market principles and private enterprise.

        And even from a Western perspective, “centrism without bias” being right of a regulated market economy sounds like propaganda.

        Especially since they use words wrong. Corporatism does not refer to “rule by corporations”, but “rule by incorporated elements like trade and industry unions, and collective bargaining”. For reference, the Nordics are heavily corporatists. No minimum wage, but strong union presence. Are they radical right?

        BTW the word they are looking for is corporatocracy, which is defined as a range between excessive corrupution of a state to totalitarian dictatorships, which is a radical right ideology adjacent to fascism.

        I get what they are trying to do, which is to try and bridge the two mainstream US public’s thought processes, but in most - arguably more free - countries, politics does not boil down to two parties, two narratives, two publics and two choices. I don’t mind that they do what they do, but it makes zero sense to try and apply it to Israel and Gaza, which itself has more than two competing narratives, which such a binary is too basic to cover.

        The bigger problem is that it forces thought into a dichotomy, which eliminates conversation and shuts down reason and understanding, and only lets tribalism and rage prevail.