Ah, my mistake - OP's post was literally just taken down from Youshouldknow@Lemmy.world because they have a rule that prohibits "ideological" posts on politically charged topics.
I saw that OP had reposted but my Lemmy client didn't make it clear that it was to this instance, not lemmy.world.
I'll add UN Watch to the list.
MBFC rates it as "highly credible" despite it publishing laughably bad hit-pieces on UN officials who openly criticize Israel.
I did a debunk on one of their articles that was removed from this very community due to disinformation, but I've posted a screenshot of my critique here for anyone who is interested.
Dude, this is just going to get removed due to Rule 4.
I'm with you that this is a very worthwhile discussion to have, but this isn't the right community to post it in.
I have another one - MBFC rates a site called UNWatch as "highly credible" when in fact they run trash-tier hit pieces on UN officials who criticize Israel. Their articles have been removed from WorldNews@Lemmy.world for disinformation.
I debunked one of their articles last month. If you want to see the kind of crap they publish, see a screenshot of my critique here.
Yup, sorry you're right - it was World News, not News.
I'm not necessarily fully agreeing with OP's thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a "highly credible" source.
I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can't link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)
Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC's credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.
The idea that propaganda cannot be propaganda if it is delivered in a dry, objective tone is nonsensical.
The Israel/Palestine conflict is a great example of this - especially in the US. Anyone who has closely watched the mainstream news media cover the situation in Gaza, or the college protests that sprung up as a result, has witnessed consent for Israel's war being manufactured in front of their very eyes, along with the vilification of anyone who stands opposed to it. The fact that it is delivered by seemingly professional journalists in a somber, even tone has no bearing whatsoever on how accurately it describes reality.
I disagree -- I think there is definitely room for this more impassioned/personal style of reporting as long as the facts being reported are accurate, especially with this conflict in particular. After all, the headline is not misleading -- people literally attacked military bases in defense of the right of IDF soldiers to rape and torture Palestinian detainees with impunity. That happened.
If you prefer the more dispassionate, passive-voice-using, equivocating language about what is going on in Israel/Palestine right now, you have almost the entire rest of the Western news media to choose from.
No sick burn was intended.
Regardless of whether you think an emotive or a dispassionate tone is more appropriate for this particular story, the facts contained in both articles remain the same, do they not?
Perhaps you would prefer CBS News?
Many Republicans are apparently only just learning what 'biracial' means.
Ignore my previous comment - I was on your profile and saw that you had reposted, but hadn't realized that it was to this community rather than the .world one.
Don't mind me -- carry on!