Edit: it’s good enough to be used by fact checkers :) this is hilarious
Analysis / Bias
In review, the website publishes articles from a legal perspective related to national security issues. Articles typically feature minimal to moderate loaded language such as this: The Potential Trouble with Nominating a DNI from Trump’s Central Casting. This story is properly sourced to the President’s daily briefs and the Washington Post. All articles reviewed are properly sourced from credible media outlets such as Reuters, Associated Press, Justice.gov, and the New York Times.
Although Lawfare is known for its straight factual reporting, they also produce editorial content that frequently discusses former President Trump’s legal issues and policy that may not be constitutional. This reporting is always evidence-based. In general, Lawfare is factual and utilizes minimal personal bias as they do not take sides. They report on the law and how it impacts national security.
Failed Fact Checks
They are used as a resource for IFCN fact-checkers.
I have found MediaBiasFactCheck to be … not entirely trustworthy.
Same with Snopes.
the comment about the UN being more-trustworthy in terms of framing is dead-on.
the ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest, not because of a blog-post, or because of mere-opinion, but because of an ocean-of-evidence sufficient to justify a warrant for a man’s arrest.
You apparently discount that, as do many, & hold that websites are more-valid than the ICC’s determination.
Good for you.
The ICC’s right, in this case, in my opinion, & the opinion of many others.
Hmm, why would a “blog” be a source for fact checkers? Someone ought to tell them they’re sourcing propaganda. And maybe someone should tell Brookings that too.
The rest of your opinion is just… Your opinion. Your personal disapproval of mbfc means nothing. Unless you have another highly reputable source that supports your claim about mbfc, I’m gonna stop listening. It’s simply an attempt to silence information you personally disagree with and would not like to have discussion around. You offer no evidence to support your doubt of mbfc but your own anecdotal experience. They’re a widely accepted trustworthy source, even as described by their competitors.
You attack the source and not the information. This article describes a take on how this punishment may not lead to peace. No one is “discounting” anything, I don’t even understand how you’d get that from what I’d said, since you’re saying I discounted something.
Seems like a lot of users here want this article to say what they desire, but can’t find any way to quote where it says that.
So you’re telling me mbfc is wrong?
Edit: it’s good enough to be used by fact checkers :) this is hilarious
I am telling you to be dare, and in the name of the truth to explore other narratives, stories and facts. All of it to get your own conclusions.
Be dare, the truth is just awaiting you
The fuck does this mean? Don’t listen to highly reputable sources?
Wow, you almost got me.
26 comments and you are doing half of them just to defend your ground without the chance to accept the minimum criticism to your point of view.
You just got enough attention from my petty time.
I defended my ground with sources. So far you you’ve baselessly asserted this is propaganda because you… Don’t like what it says.
Edit: this was fun, except you didn’t have a funny comment at the end admitting you can’t defend your position like the other user.
I have found MediaBiasFactCheck to be … not entirely trustworthy.
Same with Snopes.
the comment about the UN being more-trustworthy in terms of framing is dead-on.
the ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest, not because of a blog-post, or because of mere-opinion, but because of an ocean-of-evidence sufficient to justify a warrant for a man’s arrest.
You apparently discount that, as do many, & hold that websites are more-valid than the ICC’s determination.
Good for you.
The ICC’s right, in this case, in my opinion, & the opinion of many others.
_ /\ _
Hmm, why would a “blog” be a source for fact checkers? Someone ought to tell them they’re sourcing propaganda. And maybe someone should tell Brookings that too.
The rest of your opinion is just… Your opinion. Your personal disapproval of mbfc means nothing. Unless you have another highly reputable source that supports your claim about mbfc, I’m gonna stop listening. It’s simply an attempt to silence information you personally disagree with and would not like to have discussion around. You offer no evidence to support your doubt of mbfc but your own anecdotal experience. They’re a widely accepted trustworthy source, even as described by their competitors.
You attack the source and not the information. This article describes a take on how this punishment may not lead to peace. No one is “discounting” anything, I don’t even understand how you’d get that from what I’d said, since you’re saying I discounted something.
Seems like a lot of users here want this article to say what they desire, but can’t find any way to quote where it says that.