• athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Media bias / fact check for Voice of Europe;

    Bias: Extreme Right

    Credibility: Low

    .Notes: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam. Voice of Europe also has a poor track record with fact checkers.

    Overall, this site is Questionable due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor sourcing. A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.

    Sure sounds like a source I want to line the litterbox with.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why do you say that media bias fact check is baseless propaganda?

        edit: One of the most left leaning but highly factual news sites I go to is Fair.org. This site is almost always against the major mainstream media consensus, but backs up its claims with lots of high quality reasoning and evidence. MBFC rate it left-center and high factual reporting.

        It gives Jacobin, probably one of the biggest left leaning news sites in the US, a left leaning and high factual reporting score. Jacobin calls themselves left leaning, of course. For anyone who knows history, it’s right in their name. So what’s the problem there?

        Meanwhile, it gives all the major right wing news sites poor ratings. Fox News, Breitbart, Epoch times, etc. get an extreme right and Mixed factual reporting score.

        So I understand why you would besmirch MBFC if you’re some rightwinger. But, from the left, I don’t understand. Reality has a left leaning bias.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s true that MBFC biased but it’s consistent with its bias. Just shift their ratings to the right by about a meter then it will be accurate.

    • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      As far as I can tell they just translated a Defence Arabia article and cross-referenced it with publicly available information on US deliveries to Ukraine. In another comment, I cited the original article (in Arabic) that they appear to draw from.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        66
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t care. I’m tired of people submitting bullshit sources and then coming up with a reason as to why it’s okay to listen to them just this one time. It drives attention and revenue to those sources, encourages their bad behavior, and normalizes the source as ‘sometimes okay’ in people’s minds, eventually leading people to be less critical and and more susceptible to the bullshit the source wants to spread. Which is EXACTLY how propaganda outlets work.

        • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How about we engage with the content? They didn’t make up the numbers, so why is Morocco getting more tanks than Ukraine and why do they need so many?

          • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Obviously because Morocco makes sure Western Sahara stays a colony deprived of rights, so the West keeps getting those natural resources for cheap.

                • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nah I asked first and looked later. I was so overcome by the need to pop someone’s little righteous justice boner I couldn’t help but comment first.

          • protist@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The comment you’re responding to explicitly stated why they don’t want to engage with this content. To try answering your question though, I’m going to guess it’s because Morocco has been buying US arms for a lot longer than Ukraine has. In the title, “has received” is incredibly misleading, it makes it seem like the US is giving tanks to Morocco, but they’re buying them.

            • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. I don’t care how they feel about the source. I think we’re all grown-ups here and are capable of seeing through any propaganda the source may have added to the facts. I’m here to discuss the factual content of the article, which is rather interesting. I haven’t been following the drama of northwestern Africa’s territorial disputes.

              2. Don’t guess, because you’re just wrong. 1st sentence. “The received tanks were immediately deployed to the southern part of the country, specifically to the disputed Western Sahara region.” Some other commentors added more relevant info, so nice of them.

              3. “has received” is indeed misleading, if you’re in high school. No one receives weapons for free, not even Ukraine or Israel. Obviously Morocco paid for them.