FYI:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/13/2023)

Edit: down vote all you want, your state media is just that :)

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/who-fact-checks-the-fact-checkers-research/

“‘Fact-checking’ fact checkers: A data-driven approach,” a 22-page October research article from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, examined practices of U.S. fact-checking organizations Snopes, PolitiFact and Logically, along with The Australian Associated Press.

Sian Lee, Aiping Xiong, Harseung Seo and Dongwon Lee of Penn State University’s College of Information Sciences and Technology did the peer-reviewed research.

The Penn State researchers found U.S. fact-checking spikes during major news events. In recent years, that was during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. Further, the researchers said, misinformation’s spread can mislead and harm people and society.

The researchers examined 11,639 fact-checking articles from Snopes and 10,710 from PolitiFact from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2022. They found Snopes checked more “real claims” — claims that rate true or mostly true — with 28.7% versus 11% for PolitiFact.

Looking widely, the researchers found high agreement when Snopes and PolitiFact probed the same information. Of 749 matching claims (examining the same information), 521 received identical ratings and 228 (30.4%) had diverging ratings. But, the researchers found nuances caused nearly all of these divergent verdicts — granularity of ratings (Snopes and PolitiFact scales differ slightly); differences in focus; differences in fact-checked information and the different timing of the fact-checks.

Adjusting for these systematic discrepancies, Penn State’s researchers found just one conflicting rating among the 749 matching claims.

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.

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.

The fuck does this mean? Don’t listen to highly reputable sources?

So you’re telling me mbfc is wrong?

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.

Hmm, the side bar says I should use mbfc in order to spot misinformation. Did I do it wrong?

Sigh, not the first time these highly reputable sources have been called propaganda.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/

Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence-based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact-checkers.

While that reasoning is impenetrable, I am gonna have to stand firm in my opinion :)

You’re claiming the author’s opinion using the article, which is trash (according to you), so you can’t use the article to support your claim. So your claim is unsupported, even though you say the article supports your claim?

Yea, no re.

GG no re?

No, you’re trying to conflate their disagreement with this action with the idea that they disagree with any action, which you’ve thus far been unable to support with quotes from the article.

Again, that doesn’t show up in the article. I can see you want it to say that, but I’m sorry, the article is objectively not suggesting no consequences.

I can’t even begin to make any sort of judgement on that, there are multitudes of mechanisms at their disposal I’m surely unaware of that could be employed. Netanyahu may be suffering his own consequences at home without help from the outside, creating a setting for the ICC in the near future to come after him in a different way with fewer potential pitfalls, though again I can’t say what should be done. I can see the author’s point in how this action could potentially not lead to peace right now, and agree.

The ICC’s current action is considered by the author to potentially not lead to peace but inflame aspects of the conflict.

The move might be one small step forward for some sort of symbolic justice, but it’s going to be a giant leap backward from reaching a far more important goal—peace.

Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?

Can you show me in that quote where it says there should be no consequences? Not that it will push people to the right.

Can you cite where it says there should be no consequences?

Edit: to anyone down voting, not that these numbers mean much to me, would you care to back up the above user’s claim? Because I think bias is showing through instead of actual consideration.

You could try providing high reliability sources that show something in the article is propaganda. Otherwise I think you just don’t like the article for personal reasons. And I really am losing your point about who was accusing who of the crocus attack.

Interesting opinion. Not the first time I heard of it (to be clear, Russia wasn’t accusing, it was social media users and Dugin). If you’re concerned with mbfc, this may not be the sub for you.

https://gnet-research.org/2024/04/23/moscow-attack-the-popularisation-of-far-right-conspiracy-theories-in-mainstream-media/

In the immediate aftermath of the 22 March attack on Moscow’s Crocus City Hall, social media was replete with misinformation, including conspiracy theories surrounding the affiliations of the perpetrators. Despite the terror cell Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) claiming responsibility for the mass shooting in a statement made to their Telegram and multimedia news outlet Amaq, users on 4chan and Instagram pointed to alternative culprits. In comments left on social media posts, users allude to fringe conspiracy theories popularised on 4chan, which posit that the United States and Israel are the real perpetrators of the attack, using the Islamic State as a shadowy force to carry out an orchestrated geopolitical agenda under the guise of terrorism. The idea that the CIA and Mossad either collaborated with ISKP or provided material support to the group spread from 4chan’s ‘politically incorrect’ (‘/pol/) community to mainstream social media platforms, making the pervasiveness of far-right misinformation visible to millions.

This Insight will show how social media users have made conspiratorial claims about the role of Israel and the United States in the violent attack at Crocus City Hall that killed more than 130 people.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/woodrow-wilson-international-center-for-scholars/

Overall, we rate the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Left-Center Biased based on story selection that favors science and the political left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 7/10/2016) Updated (10/18/2022)