World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No it was fully debunked. The Intercept posted about it recently. Even NYT employees don't believe it anymore.
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-podcast-camera/
The guys who actually debunked it two months ago are not allowed to be posted here because they're more pro Russia. All my posts about it got removed back then. They are maximum censored.
While I don't agree with their Russia stance their Palestine research has been spot on so far. But here's a random YouTube video https://youtu.be/paDjsRkhc28
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/paDjsRkhc28
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Them pausing a podcast to investigate claims isn't them not believing in it. The Times regularly publishes corrections and have issued one about that article regarding a person's age. And that's after further investigation. It's not surprising that they didn't air it afterward -- it's a daily podcast that discusses the most important news stories of the previous few days. I listen to that podcast and I can't recall them ever covering something that was months old.
The 'guys' who "actually debunked it" -- an anonymous author publishing at a propaganda outlet -- are a bunch of fucking liars, which is why it was banned to begin with. The Times followed up with that family:
After this was published, the propaganda outlet corrected "minor typographical errors" but mentioned nothing about the family calling them liars, disputing the thesis and headline of their article. It's been five days since that story was published. They didn't mention that she quickly deleted her post to begin with or contact her to ask why. They didn't mention that she was upset that they had used her comment to help cover up horrific sexual violence. They are exploiting a grieving family to promote a false narrative. Those intrepid, upstanding anonymous reporters at propaganda rags!
That article is an object lesson in why you shouldn't fish "news" out of the toilet.
Archive
Are you calling The Intercept toilet news?
New York Times was using ZAKA as evidence, The guys who made up the 40 beheaded babies.
Go read the original article debunking NYT. It's not some random with wild claims. Everything is backed up with links and videos. "Screams without proof".
More and more reporters are coming out right now backing it up.
I'm calling the propaganda outlet I'm not naming a toilet. Are you even reading my posts?
The 40 beheaded babies claim is a long-debunked myth and a claim never made by either the Israeli government or the IDF. It began and spread on social media.
That Intercept article is hyperbolic and editorializes like crazy. The Daily "going to press" on a single episode with something that could be proven untrue after further investigation is nothing like Caliphate except for it being a podcast. Caliphate was a feature 12-episode documentary series that had serious reporting errors. Comparing those two things is NY Post-level tabloid reporting. It was reasonable for them not to record it but the Times' follow-up report says that they confirmed their initial reporting and debunked the propaganda article. The only issue left in that article is one witness -- and, again, they interviewed 150 people for that investigation -- who later said that he couldn't be sure if it was Hamas or non-Hamas Palestinians who committed sex crimes because civilians crossed over after the military collapsed. He didn't change his story about what he saw. That doesn't dramatically change the reporting, let alone "debunk" it.
I literally just told you why that article is bullshit in the last post. The family that is the focus of that article disputes the article. They DO NOT renounce the article. They DO NOT believe that they were misled. Miral Alter wrote a post because she was confused and wanted to protect her sister. She quickly took it down, a detail the article omitted when they published it anyway. They didn't contact her to find out why she had removed it because they didn't care if they were misrepresenting her. She's upset that they used her to construct a false narrative about sexual violence. In spite of this, they haven't issued a correction or retraction. The headline and subheading of that article are both the polar opposite of the truth. But they don't care. The point was constructing that false narrative, not telling the truth. That's why they have a terrible reputation. That's why the article was removed whenever it was posted. It's garbage.
I think you're talking about the initial Mondoweiss article which purely focused on Miral. That was bad for NYT but not nearly as extensive.
Around a week after that "Lies without proof" dropped which NUKED The New York Times article proving many key "witnesses" were lying ZAKA style. Another example:
I urge you to read the Lies without proof article. It's damning for NYT.
That is from a source even worse than the first. They are liars and propagandists. That's the reason no one credible is reporting it. They're known for publishing propaganda, conspiracies, and fraudulent claims.
Everyone "debunking" this has a reputation for publishing lies. But you don't seem to draw any conclusions from the fact that every place you find this "proof" turns out to be a toilet. You don't believe it because they're credible people making credible claims but because they're telling you what you want to hear.
If there were credible claims they would be EVERYWHERE. It's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writing for the New York fucking Times. The story would be bigger than the original. Look up the Jayson Blair scandal. Dozens of news organizations were still talking about it more than a decade later.
Nice you didn't address any of the posted evidence debunking NYT. Even quoted some for you. But you quickly ignored it.
Quick dodge on that one. Result to the classic adhom.
Even people working at NYT are less in denial than you.
Their podcast gets broadcasted nationwide on radio, it's a pretty big deal if even those people are saying "yeah that rape article was fake".
Friends don't make friends fish in the sewer for truthy nugs.
You didn't post evidence. If you come across some I'd be happy to but I don't fact check propaganda. I'm not gonna spend hours of my life fact-checking some garbage written by a guy who writes for two propaganda networks for an authoritarian regime. I already know it's bullshit.
If you had any media literacy skill you would too.
Propaganda slurping isn't media literacy. NYT isn't Jesus dude. The article didn't even get verified by other staff. Only the Pullitzer Pope was allowed to manufacture consent for Genocide.
The debunking article uses official claims from the IDF themselves to show that the witnesses statements are factually false.
If you dare to read and address any of what's false in it I'll respond. This bad faith denial shtick you have going is pointless.