this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
28 points (57.0% liked)
Fediverse
28407 readers
801 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't help but notice that Five singles out "lack of transparency" while ignoring "poor sourcing" and "one-sided reporting". This is a common tactic.
Any responsible journalistic entity should be confirming their sources, and giving any accused a chance to give their own side of a story.
It's true they're getting very hard to find these days. I was very disappointed that even NBC the other day, reporting on the House investigation into Biden, had the gall to simply say that "the White House has not yet had a chance to comment".
There's a small handful of good ones still, though, depending on the niche you're looking for. ProPublica is still an example of responsible journalism for instance.
Check the farm... I think that's where all of them went to.
Where besides Dave's assessment are you sourcing your information? Isn't it one-sided to only listen to Dave M. Van Zandt's opinion without doing additional investigation?
The Cradle is trash though. And a defender of the Russian genocide of Ukraine.
I support Ukrainians against colonization by Russia, but I'm not threatened by journalists who cover the facts from a different perspective from mine.
Can you demonstrate your claim? I did a perfunctory search, and the stories I found involving Russia seem informative and typically even-handed based on the standards of western journalism.
Running interference for the Ukrainian genocide is a bit more than 'a different perspective'. Like media that claims Israel is still defending itself in Gaza.
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/23408
It goes on and on like that. I can dig up more if you like.
Yikes! This is the first time I've come across The Cradle. It's the last time too.
I agree, Pepe Escobar's take in that opinion piece is complete garbage. It should be noted that it is an opinion piece with the sub text "The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle."
Shutting down the entire journal because one columnist is a Putin apologist isn't what the concept of a free press is about. I'd be less alarmed by mods shutting down a post of that columnist for genocide apology. It looks like it's only one featured columnist out of five occasionally posting garbage like that, and the bulk of their focus is on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Alan Dershowitz, famous for his shit takes, has apologized for torture and genocide and continues to be frequently featured in The Boston Globe, Haaretz, and The Wall Street Journal. Since those sources are posted freely, it would be inconsistent to ban The Cradle over Pepe Escobar.
How many articles by how many authors since the beginning of the war need to be posted before you would regard the site as knowingly pushing Russian propaganda?
How do you distinguish between opinion and propaganda? Its entirely credible that Pepe Escobar sincerely believes the positions he holds.
Should the corpus of every news source that includes opinion pieces that serve the interests of a war criminal state be banned?
Oh, so if he sincerely believes in genocide, it's fine.
If they continuously make naked apologia for that war criminal state's war crimes, especially ongoing ones, and parrot the propaganda points pushed by that state which clearly and directly contradict reality, yes, absolutely.
By that logic, the NY Times should be banned as a source. They're opinion section is chocked full of basically the pro US point of view and defending Israel (including a memo advocating genocide denial). One-sided coverage, poorly sourced, nakedly biased, it all applies to them, too.
Allowing sources from all points of view, as long as the facts are true, seems better than picking and choosing due to bias. Even these "centrist" institutions have their own biases.
Regardless of our conflict, we can agree that Pepe Escobar is a shithead.
There's an old joke that goes:
My concern is that the criteria you are using to justify banning The Cradle would also ban most United States media as well. I value the principle of a free press, and what you're proposing is inconsistent with those values. It's easy to call for the ban of information that disagrees with us, but unless we develop a more nuanced approach to combating propaganda, we risk replicating the values of the authoritarian systems we oppose.
My point is just that banning The Cradle is not inherently an illegitimate move. You may not agree with it, and I honestly wouldn't see the point unless someone was spamming The Cradle's articles or editorials, but it is a legitimate point to consider that they carry water for Russian propaganda, and in allowing that source, misinformation multiplies and makes the mods' jobs harder.
A appreciate your work demonstrating The Cradle's support for the Russian state. It's the first time I can remember seeing The Cradle posted on here, and in between being subscribed to these communities and my contributions to LemmyWorldDefenseHQ, I have not seen The Cradle spam as a reported or observed problem.
I've read the article, and I find it valuable. I'm alarmed that the Lemmy World !politics and !news mods have failed to demonstrate the pressing need for the ham-fisted gatekeeping and censorship regime they've implemented.
Lemmy.World is the largest instance, and !politics and !news are flagship communities. I would like to see the Fediverse overtake corporate forums, and learning to approach the spectrum of journalistic credibility with nuance is an essential feature of a better version of social media.
Here’s one: https://thecradle.co/articles/syrian-president-assures-russia-of-unwavering-support
I dunno, seems pretty biased to me. Even if it’s mostly quoting politicians, uncritically repeating their propaganda without any caveats is questionable at best.
Yeah, that's not great, but it's not outside the bounds of what you'd typically find in the uncritical reporting of Western politicians in periodicals like Reuters.
The issue isn't that The Cradle is biased, all journalism is biased. The issue is that they're being treated with the tools that should only be reserved for conspiracy mills and AI fake news farms. I find that alarming.
I’m not sure I agree. For comparison, here’s a recent article on Gaza from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-warns-israel-hamas-best-last-chance-end-gaza-war-2024-08-19/
Yes, it’s written from a western perspective, but there’s a clear attempt to include opposing perspectives including Hamas and ordinary Gazans. You see no such attempts from the Cradle’s reporting.
It’s true that all media is biased but that does not mean it’s equally biased. There is a big difference between the unavoidable bias of your own unconscious views on a topic and actively spreading misinformation. I am not very familiar with the cradle beyond these few articles but they appear to fit the latter category while Reuters and similar publications fit into the former.
Overall I think the assessment by the bias ranking seems fair, and the post removal even encouraged you to post another source on the same topic, so it’s not saying that this issue cannot be discussed. While I don’t necessarily agree with the mod’s action, it doesn’t seem like it’s an attempt to silence Palestinian voices either.
You do have a valid point. When I encounter something they are reporting that interests me, it would behove me to do further checking. There are other fact checking and news comparing services, and wikipedia usually has some good background information.
Additionally, I could check an article myself to make sure they actually do include an IDF statement in addition to any pro-Palestinian sources' statements.