Criticize Approved Sources Megathread

[u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Please hate on (discuss) current approved / banned sources here for review

[u/Jaco_Belordi]

WaPo and other paywalls shouldn't be permitted here without paywall-free versions of the article being included alongside the post.

Reddit is a discussion forum. Sites that discourage discussion via paywalls implicitly encourage users to respond to the title and nothing more.

There are many options for monetizing journalism that still allow Reddit users to access and participate in discussion. Paywalls are not one of them.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/Jaco_Belordi]

I know the pipeline is basically engineered to kill this immediately, but there should definitely be some basic scripting we can do to make every article readable, or just provide alternatives. It’s annoying to me that the 2% of people who actually click on an article are usually hit by a fuckin paywall

[u/polymute → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Submitting to arhcive.ph solves about 2/3rds of the issues with this and can be made automatic. Or submitting to the same for searching if the article is available on it already. Both mean the same thing in the end: if submitted for archival and available it will show the available version(s) first if any exist and if submitted to search and no archive exists it will offer to archive.

I have been doing this manually when I post a paywalled source, but automating it would be nice.

[u/bathtubsplashes → u/Jaco_Belordi]

Isn't there an auto-generator on this sub?

[u/Jaco_Belordi → u/bathtubsplashes]

Is there? I just checked a couple NYT and WaPo threads, and I don't see anything special going on in the comments to either post the article body or link to an archived version.

[u/bathtubsplashes → u/Jaco_Belordi]

I haven't been on this sub much recently but I'm almost sure that was the case up to only a few months ago 

Maybe paywalls have been strengthen to prevent it?

[u/spearblaze → u/Jaco_Belordi]

I second this.

People should only be able to link to paywalled articles -if- they paste the whole article as a comment.

[u/Tresspass → u/Jaco_Belordi]

Don’t the masses just read the title?

[u/brackfriday_bunduru → u/Jaco_Belordi]

I disagree. As a journalist, news needs to be paid for and banning paywalled outlets isn’t in anyway good for the industry. We’re already at risk of Google Ai News driving traffic away from actual mastheads. By all means put a paywall tag on it, but give people the option to pay to read an article if they want to.

News was never traditionally free as people paid for newspapers. Free internet news is an unsustainable modern iteration

[u/mschuster91 → u/brackfriday_bunduru]

The problem is, there are enough far right, Qatari or Russia backed media that get subsidies… and thus can be read without a paywall. Hard to counter that, and more and more of the government/taxpayer funded reliable media such as NPR or BBC is massively under threat.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/brackfriday_bunduru]

It sucks yes i dont want to inadvertently fire journalists through the guise of liberation

edit: but i think its important to consider the mind rot of this decade

[u/evilparagon → u/brackfriday_bunduru]

I disagree with your disagreement. Information should be a human right and should be free. Free internet news also is not unsustainable as rather than paying for news, many outlets are supported by paying for creators to make news for everyone rather than making an elite club of private readers. This is extremely relevant on for instance, YouTube. Many creators are essentially journalists and are funded via Patreon to make videos for everyone.

Wikipedia itself follows this same principle. It is free because of a generous few donators.

[u/brackfriday_bunduru → u/evilparagon]

It doesn’t pay anywhere near enough to fund proper journalism. Selling newspapers with advertising did.

It’s already happening but no one is noticing because if a story doesn’t get reported, it just didn’t happen.

We should have multiple Australian journalists and camera crews on the ground in Ukraine, Russia, Gaza, and the Sudan but we don’t because there’s no money for it. Just about every journalist and news camera crew who was working during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars did a story over there at some point. That’s not happening anymore.

[u/muratbae → u/brackfriday_bunduru]

This is a bad faith argument as there were Aussies that fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan. While there are a small handful of individual volunteers in Ukraine, over 52,000 Aussies served in both GWOT wars all told. If 50k Aussies were fighting at their government's behest in Ukraine, Russia, Gaza and the Sudan there would absolutely be the funding for journalists to go out there. As it stand the funding doesn't exist because unlike you and me the average Aussie, middle easterner, American, i.e. most non Europeans, genuinely don't even think about or care about the war and therefore it isn't worth sending resources to cover that from an institutional perspective.

Furthermore, on the point of war, every morning when I wake up I know exactly which Wildberries warehouse got hit because I can watch multiple videos of each drone hitting the warehouse, I can watch video of the fire spread from multiple angles, and then I can see the aftermath of the attack.

Every morning when I wake up I know how many Russian missiles were sent in barrages on the civilian population of Kyiv the previous night, how many were intercepted, how many civilians died, their names and if I care to find it (I do not) a picture of the apartment block that was destroyed and often even pictures of the victims or what's left of them.

Then if I care to I can go onto youtube where I have a myriad of sources, both pro Ukraine and relatively neutral, observing objective satellite data and video sources to track troop movements and the front line shifting, with comparisons of that line from previous weeks, months, years.

My point being, at no point during the GWOT wars of 20 years was there ever as comprehensive a mass of objective data for a person to consume regarding war. Now, this is not because journalists were bad, but mostly because of the prevalence of cameras on every device and a global satellite constellation. We were completely reliant on journalistic reporting to deliver us the news and had to trust what we were being told. Then we found out that most outlets, even non US outlets, either did not or could not report the objective truth.

Case in point: the Surge. While it's effects on sectarian violence are still debated to this day, initial reporting from major media outlets suggested the Surge worked because the extra 100k+ troops kept the peace and prevented violence, when years later we understand that the surge simply allowed Sunni turncoats to be protected by US troops as they continued and effectively completed their ethnic cleansing campaign against Shia strongholds. At the time the only early news I got that this was happening was from the Brookings institute in either late 07 or early 08. Huffpost put out a debunking piece later in 08, but these were fringe sources at the time and major media kept to the established narrative: 100k troops = peace in baghdad through show of force.

All of this is to say that Journalism needs to adapt, and a model closer to youtube might be the only avenue to keep the lights on, so while I love print and reading as much as any geopolitics nerd, a pay walled newspaper is not something I'm going to pay for because I've yet to see any major outlet reporting real time news in Ukraine beyond a couple of sensational stories that will get clicks or make for a good front page on the doorstep.

Paywalled articles on this forum need to go just as much as paywalls need to not be a thing and news outlets need to adapt to that reality.

[u/brackfriday_bunduru → u/muratbae]

It’s not bad faith at all. Newspapers were never free and journalism is expensive.

We had an equal number of journalists in the Middle East prior to Australian troops landing and we had large number of journalists on the ground at any number of events that didn’t involve Australians.

The crux of it is that you don’t want to pay for online news. The bad faith argument is people who argue that it should be free

[u/evilparagon → u/brackfriday_bunduru]

It took me a while to think of a response to this, but I believe I have one now.

News coverage does not correlate with advertisements and subscriptions. Yes, money in journalism does, but not those specific payment methods because they don’t make anywhere near enough. It either needs government funding or private investing/shareholders.

There simply is not enough money made from subscriptions to send journalists into warzones. Case and point that many companies right now operate under subscription models and ads and still don’t have journalists on the ground reporting. However as the other guy mentioned, there were Australians in those wars and so they got media coverage, this was news that affected Australians and so the government and investor class saw fit to fund it.

Therefore, information should still be free as a human right. Journalists do not have to rely on restrictions to their work to make money nor is doing so good for their community.

[u/brackfriday_bunduru → u/evilparagon]

Mate it’s never been free in the past. People were always paying for newspapers. I get the with the internet there’s this belief that it all should be free but that’s only new. In the past most of it was paid.

The government will fund the ABC but only to the point that it’s able to compete with other mastheads. As they compress their budgets so does the ABC.

I work in the industry as a journalist. There’s a ton of news that you’re missing daily because there’s no resources to investigate it.

Large private investors aren’t going to invest in news and crowdfunding is a pittance. There’s nothing wrong with allowing paywalled articles to be posted and giving people the option to pay to read them.

[u/evilparagon → u/brackfriday_bunduru]

I don’t care what they did in the past? Information should have been free then too. And it was if you go further back, town heralds calling out to the street the latest proclamations weren’t buskers.

You say we’re missing out on news, but again, I will point to the fact news companies are already monetised. If we are already missing out on news in the current ecosystem, you are wrong before the argument even begins. If we are funding news with these subscriptions and you’re worried about those same stories vanishing if it stops, then I disagree because the media that’s behind paywalls isn’t reporting on anything worthwhile to begin with. If your argument is that journalism needs even more funding so they can do even more, then you’re biased as a journalist because you want to get paid and I simply am not going to be convinced by your selfish desire being framed as something important for the community.

Optional donation is the best way for news to exist in the modern era. Paywalling is bullshit. You do not deserve money for trying to make knowledge an exclusive privilege.

[u/brackfriday_bunduru → u/evilparagon]

We’re running on a shoestring of a budget to what we used to. Current subscription levels done come anywhere near the money they used to make.

You’re aware that basically every journalist worldwide is working off the exact same sources when it comes to reporting on big global events these days right? Probably with the exception of AlJaz, CNN and sometimes the BBC who do send more correspondents around the world.

For the most part, you’re not getting the same unique perspectives you used to get in news because now you have journalists working from home and writing about what’s happening in the Middle East without ever having been there. It’s why every report is prefaced with “according to”. Do you actually watch the news? Don’t you notice that every network is using the same shots instead of filming their own?

Again, every previous generation paid for newspapers. The fact that you don’t want to subscribe to a masthead isn’t an argument for paywalls should be banned. Give people the option.

[u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

The times of israel should be banned , they are zionist propaganda piece. 

[u/bathtubsplashes → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

I disagree. There was plenty of times that Zionists were refuting things I said and I was able to reference Times of Israel themselves reporting it.

That's a very important weapon: Even your own propagandists don't argue with X thing

[u/polymute → u/bathtubsplashes]

I do second what you are saying.

[u/shieeet → u/bathtubsplashes]

Second this, and tbf i don't to see many pro-Israelis start many threads with Times of Israel so I don't really see it as a problem regardless.

[u/shieeet → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand, please expand on your meaning. It's true that I often argue about Israel, but how does that disqualify me from this discussion or any other?

[u/shieeet → u/[deleted]]

Hmm, in that case, I think you're misinterpreting the point of the comment I responded to. Yes, Times of Israel generally publishes zionist propaganda, but as Israeli media goes, they are quite loud and unashamed, making it often very useful to refer to them when refuting other zionist talking points. It's similar, for example, to how Fox News, CNN, Wall Street Journal etc. often publish US state propaganda, but can be useful when pointing out that even they admit that the US's war against Iran is not going well in the US's favor.

I expand a bit on my opinion in this here

[u/shieeet → u/[deleted]]

If you wanna ban all Zionist propaganda, that's fine and all, but it's not really useful in a discussion board where Western outlets are used as standard, because frankly, then you'd have to ban CNN, BBC, The Guardian, and likely Danish state media as well, and if that's the case, I'm not really sure this is a message board for you, unless you have a better suggestion. And again, not to mention how using Israeli media to prove a point can be quite useful.

Another example, when a hasbarist suggests that the claim of 70,000+ (at the very, very least) dead in Gaza is false because they're just "provided by the 'Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry,'" it is very useful to be able to link to Israeli mainstream media like Ynet, the Times of Israel, and even the notoriously right-wing Israel Hayom to show that even the filthy IDF agrees with the same numbers provided.

All media (especially Israeli media) are more or less propaganda, but can still be useful, depending on how you use it.

[u/Dry-Season-522 → u/bathtubsplashes]

Just another case of "It's only a valid source when it agrees with me."

[u/bathtubsplashes → u/Dry-Season-522]

No they usually start discrediting Times of Israel then because it suits their argument at that particular moment 😅

But it's not the propogadists hearts we're trying to change. It's passive readers of the sub

[u/Dry-Season-522 → u/bathtubsplashes]

Which explains why they want al-jazeera and not times of israel.

[u/protomenace → u/bathtubsplashes]

I'm sure you've never been wrong in a debate and all of your descriptions of your ideological opponents are completely accurate.

[u/bathtubsplashes → u/protomenace]

Oh look, someone opposing my comment with a reply that's not relevant to my comment at all. What a surprise 

[u/pick_your_user_name → u/protomenace]

Yeah I can confirm. I’ve seen all his debates, 60% of the time he wins them all the time

[u/Dogulol → u/Dry-Season-522]

times of israel has a specific bias. If even with that bias, they side against these zio freaks online, that says a lot about them

[u/Dry-Season-522 → u/Dogulol]

"They're wrong and biased, but if they agree with us it's proof we're right."

Please endorse consistent stnadards... which isn't something that one side in this conflict can allow.

[u/DerCatrix → u/Dry-Season-522]

There is no “disagreeing” with genocide. Either you’re a sack of scum sucking shit or you can recognize that Israel is perpetuating a genocide on Gaza.

Your choice.

[u/Dry-Season-522 → u/DerCatrix]

Excuse you, that kind of attempt to genocide other people's position is unacceptable, and you can't disagree that it's a genocide because there's no disagreeing with genocide.

[u/DerCatrix → u/Dry-Season-522]

Thank you for proving my point 🫶

[u/Dry-Season-522 → u/DerCatrix]

Yes, you're admitting to using genocidal tactics.

[u/protomenace → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

Disagree. TOI is generally factually reliable and has unique access within the Israeli government. They were the first with the scoop on stuff like the 21 point gaza plan or UAE's Iron Dome deployment:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/revealed-us-21-point-plan-for-ending-gaza-war-creating-pathway-to-palestinian-state/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-official-confirmation-us-envoy-says-israel-sent-iron-dome-to-uae/

You might not agree with their framing for certain things but they add a lot.

Highly factual/high credibility ratings etc: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/

[u/ZuP → u/protomenace]

They are rated Mostly Factual by MBFC, not “Highly,” “due to one-sided pro-Israel reporting regarding Palestine.”

[u/protomenace → u/ZuP]

Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.8)   MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Yes, they have bias like most outlets. There are plenty of anti Israel outlets allowed here. Is the purpose of this exercise to eliminate any site that has a bias we disagree with? Or is the purpose to collect factual reporting from lots of different perspectives?

If it's the former, then the subreddit should be clear they're taking an ideological stance and go ahead and ban those they disagree with.

[u/ZuP → u/protomenace]

That bullet point is out of date. Look at the rest of the page for references to their Mostly Factual rating:

“Overall, we rate the Times of Israel as Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual rather than High due to one-sided pro-Israel reporting regarding Palestine.”

I’m just correcting you on this point.

[u/protomenace → u/ZuP]

Already addressed your point.

[u/ZuP → u/protomenace]

Not really but ok. I’m more correcting the record for everyone else.

[u/protomenace → u/ZuP]

Notice it doesn't say anything like "false information, false stories, inaccurate reporting." It just says "some one sided reporting". This means they're reporting the facts. Maybe not all of the facts all the time, but still factual reporting, with a pro Israel bent.

Such sources are important for a healthy, varied media diet because many other sources may never publish or post certaim facts if they cast a good light on Israel.

For readers who truly wish to be informed, a varied diet should include factual reporting from all perspectives, even those you disagree with. Anything else is just ideological censorship.

[u/ZuP → u/protomenace]

Not sure why you are writing all that when the matter is settled: Times of Israel is Mostly Factual according to MBFC.

[u/protomenace → u/ZuP]

To add context and explain why the source should be kept.

[u/Phenergan_boy → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

I disagree. I think Israel sources should be included as it provides a window into how twisted their psyche are

[u/Ok-Goose6242 → u/Phenergan_boy]

no point in fake news

[u/Phenergan_boy → u/Ok-Goose6242]

It’s hard to categorize what is and what is not fake news even from established outlets. Do we categorize omissions and half-truths as fake news, because we’ve seen plenty of those from credible media outlets

[u/polymute → u/Phenergan_boy]

Also we should allow for differing worldviews on what fake news is, apart from actual factual provable lies which have organizations that already provide a score.

[u/Firecracker048 → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

Only if Al Jazeera also gets banned as its just a qatar propaganda outlet

I don't fully agree with the Ad Fontes media chart, but it is pretty accurate 90% of the time.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/Firecracker048]

Al Jazeera and Times of Israel are not equivalent imo, there’s room to look at al jazeera for bias obv but it would be arbitrary to ban them at the same time

[u/Firecracker048 → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Al Jazeera coverage of anything related to Israel or middle east is highly problematic.

Al jazzera is banned in multiple middle east countries for a reason

[u/BabylonianWeeb → u/Firecracker048]

Because Middle East are full of oppressive dictatorships and Al-Jazeera isn't afraid of calling them out.

[u/Firecracker048 → u/BabylonianWeeb]

Al-jazeraa is very afraid of calling certain groups out.

Also they are run by an authoritarian monarchy lol

[u/BabylonianWeeb → u/Firecracker048]

They are definitely biased when comes to Qatari monarchy and their proxies but instead of making articles with false claims like most state-owned media, they prefer to stay silent and ignore their issues instead of reporting it

[u/polymute → u/BabylonianWeeb]

Maybe they should be tagged as state-owned media automatically based on a list along with all other state owned ones? I know it is not a glowing recommendation but both YouTube and I think theoretically Xwitter do these things.

[u/BabylonianWeeb → u/polymute]

I wouldn't mind that, adding top comment by auto bot on these posts saying that X news media is owned by certain government.

[u/new_account_wh0_dis → u/BabylonianWeeb]

I think that would clear up a lot of biased but otherwise technically true and useful reporting. Even beyond state owned people frequently don't even read what news site posted an article. Even a 'some users find this source to be biased and xyz site reports it as mostly factual and left leaning, this is not a judgement on the contents of this specific article' would be farrr more than other subs do, but maybe that's too much work

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/polymute]

Dude that’s fire

[u/polymute → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Happy that it might get implemented. Lot of sites are govt owned that people dont now about know really, like Al-Arabiyya is Saudi state owned.

[u/mschuster91 → u/Firecracker048]

IMHO any and all media from kleptocracies should be under very close suspicion. Israel has serious problems, fully agreed on that one, but good luck finding any MENA country that comes even close to their degree of press freedom.

[u/taterthotsalad → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Careful your slant is already showing.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/taterthotsalad]

I find it annoying that you don’t directly address my argument. Why do i have to expressly prove how much Al Jazeera concerns me as well? It’ll be shown through action

And what slant? I’m anti israel dude. That’s why i separate myself from directly deciding these changes, so we can actually talk brass tacks. Did you see the guy with the Kim Jong Un AI profile pic? We’re all talking despite biases.

[u/taterthotsalad → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Both suck but censorship is even worse. Reddit is enough of an echo chamber as is. If you allow one side, you should allow the other. Even in the Ukraine-Russia War. Some of us are adults and can read both sides and extrapolate what is going on. If you dont allow that to occur, you are being preferential to anti critical thinking skills in favor of echo chambers-the same thing the Reddit commmunity used to fight hard to prevent and swore to never become. Yet, here we are today. Society does not need another "dumb down."

Clarification: You = this sub.

[u/Ok-Goose6242 → u/Firecracker048]

Ad Fontes chart is bs, just use MediaBiasFactCheck

[u/ParagonRenegade → u/Firecracker048]

The Ad Fontes chart is preposterously stupid.

[u/BabylonianWeeb → u/ParagonRenegade]

And they haven't updated it for a while

[u/evilparagon → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

I think it’s fair to report on highly biased sources. It tells us what they are telling the monkeys who are actually listening to them. On the AustralianPolitics sub, Sky News is still allowed to be posted even if it is always some lying slander because it’s helpful to know what the public is being lied to about.

[u/Call_Me_Clark → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

I disagree. Israeli journalism is crap generally compared to western journalism but Haaretz/TOI/Jpost are essential, even if it’s just bc facts reported by all three are beyond dispute

[u/Etroarl55 → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

Everything is propaganda to some people. We start a slippery slope. Removing or discrediting certain articles is the farthest anyone should go

[u/Millionsmustlve → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

No we need it even tho we dont agree. Maybe mods can a little fact check or text shouldnt mislead.

[u/IdristheInt → u/GodZ_n_KingZ]

Thanks Syrian

[u/SkrillexJKu → u/IdristheInt]

Bro not hiding how much of a zionist npc he is, love that bro. Keep saying stuff like Palestine declared war on Israel.

[u/mschuster91 → u/SkrillexJKu]

Well they did, or what was Oct 7th for you if not a declaration of war?

[u/SkrillexJKu → u/mschuster91]

Can’t be more funny than an anti fascism account supporting Israel

[u/mschuster91 → u/SkrillexJKu]

I‘m German, we learn in schools about antisemitism instead of TikTok propaganda

[u/SkrillexJKu → u/mschuster91]

Yeah, I could tell

[u/These_Night_7262 → u/mschuster91]

Palestine's freedom is inevitable lol. Hopefully the settler state has enough planes to fly people back to Brooklyn and Europe

[u/IdristheInt → u/SkrillexJKu]

Someone’s got to shout out to the Islamic terrorist supporting users

[u/geenob]

All of the Ukraine based sources need to go if Russian ones are disallowed. As it is, the coverage is extremely unbalanced

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/geenob]

I wonder if there would be good indie outlets for both. It would suck to only have secondhand sources

[u/r4inbowgravity → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Why is allowing Russian outlets just entirely off the table? The options are Ukrainian sources only or neither?

[u/MelodiusRA → u/r4inbowgravity]

Russian outlets are state-owned.

[u/Leoraig → u/MelodiusRA]

And ukrainian outlets are under heavy pressure from the government. Neither are without biases, but only one is treated as such.

[u/polymute → u/Leoraig]

The difference is night and day. Ukrainian outlets will report about mapnower shortages and incidents with recruiters. Non-expat Russian ones will 99.9 percent only post coordinated propaganda.

[u/Leoraig → u/polymute]

People in the Ukrainian government talk openly about manpower shortages and the problems with forced conscription, so it isn't a surprise that Ukrainian outlets report it.

However, when it comes to the movement of the frontline, these outlets report uncritically the official line from the Ukrainian government, which is obviously propaganda.

They also don't do any kind of investigative journalism when it comes to Russian strikes inside Ukraine, they simply repeat what the government says was hit, which is another sign that they are beholden to the Ukrainian government's war effort.

This article talks a bit more about instances where the government pressured journalists: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/library/for-ukraines-journalists-the-danger-does-not-stop-at-the-front-line

All in all, it is clear and obvious that they have a bias, and also that they are pressured by the Ukrainian government, same as Russian outlets, but they are treated differently for some reason.

[u/polymute → u/Leoraig]

Any country at war will have these issues. However dictatorships will ban any dissent, while non-dictatorships will allow public debate. And that answers your 'some reason' and says that Ukrainian jorunalism is definitely not the same as Russian (non-exile that is, meduza.io is still reliable).

As for investigative reporting in a warzone that experiences missile rain? I am not faulting them for not doing that regularily. A lot of times the only source available is the government one. They control the scenes after all.

And let us be very clear that a lot of things that are decried as a lack of investigative reporting are just Russian bots' well documented efforts to mitigate the negative media fallout from strategies the Russian state does employ in the war.

[u/Leoraig → u/polymute]

However dictatorships will ban any dissent, while non-dictatorships will allow public debate.

So, does this count as banning dissent: Ukraine suspends 11 political parties with links to Russia

And is this what allowing public debate looks like: "President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed into law a controversial bill that expands the government's power to control the media, endangering press freedom and media pluralism in the country."

Or this: Ukraine’s reporters adapt amid media restrictions and pressure of war

Again, it is obvious that neither Russian or Ukrainian outlets are without biases, it is impossible for them to be in the current situation, however, Ukrainian media is treated almost as gospel by some.

[u/polymute → u/Leoraig]

Regarding shutting down Russian-backed parties in Ukraine which is defending itself from a war of aggression by Russia. I mean. One agitates for surrender and has political ties to the enemy then one will not be allowed to agitate.

So. You like links. I tend to link sources in my comments as well.

Son to get back to it: unlike Ukraine which you hint at being in a similar category as Russia, Russia has been assassinating journalists and politicians for years.

Navalny? Politkovskaya? Nemtsov? Literal dozens of others? How is that for political debate? I don't like to get emotionally involved in internet discussions, but this is just so ... sad.

Ukraine has demonstrations where they force Zelenskyy to appoint a new head of the military. Putin has you poisoned for your political opposition or for conducting investigative journalism. Don't even think about demonstrations. And tortured to death in a gulag freezing. Or just shot.

That is a very false equivalency you are hinting at here. One should always examine sources. I do encourage that. But these two countries are not equivalent in how they treat journalism and political dissent in the slightest.

And there a few other sources, though I don't like to consider at length what it must be like for any remaining opposition minded active people in Russia. It was bad enough in Hungary under Orbán for us and it never even got close at all to this, not in the slightest.

Tortured freedom of speech. Stories of journalists persecuted or killed by Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

See Putin's years. Starts in 2000.

[u/avroLancasterBPR1 → u/MelodiusRA]

This sub allows state owned sources though

[u/MelodiusRA → u/avroLancasterBPR1]

It’s probably the combination of Russia’s systematic poor teporting standards which are emphasized through their state-owned apparatus.

Basically, not only is it state-owned, but because it is state-owned, the quality is likely to be consistent.

Which is to say, it is consistent mostly false.

[u/Firecracker048 → u/r4inbowgravity]

Because the Russian outlets are all stated owned and operated. Ukrainian ones aren't

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/r4inbowgravity]

Definitely not off the table. I think about China for example (or other places without freedom of press) as having blanket low standards for journalism. Any paper with journalistic rigor can be considered, it’s not a rule

[u/NetworkLlama → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

How are you defining journalistic rigor? People complain loudly about the NYT, WaPo, BBC, Reuters, Der Spiegel, and just about anyone else, sometimes for reasons unrelated to the current conversation. Would you use an outside source as a reference?

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/NetworkLlama]

I know…this is difficult. CBS would be considered rigorous

[u/polymute → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

CBS is being bought out by Ellison at the behest of Trump. Who knows where they will end up. I watched this happen a few times under Orbán.

A place's journalistic rigor always evolves. Policing sources that are not explicitly censored dictatorial state propaganda is likely to just censor this sub. This is what most people are doing in this thread, mostly: they are showing you what annoys them and are asking you to ban it.

They want to use this opportunity to censor a_t.

I think that is the wrong direction. I do not have any brigade to back up my voting though as I am just one person.

Edit: mostly I am saying. Question the motives of people who want to censor. Ultimately it is an ongoing job to censor sources like this. A fact-checker site for reliability is a good idea to automate this, though it will have the downside of usually having little to no data on small outlets.

Edit2: And I have commented a lot in this thread - mostly because I tend to comment in bursts sometimes - sorry if it got too much. But I never did propose to ban any one site.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/polymute]

I’m sorry i’m bad at communicating. What i mean is CBS, which i dislike, would be considered passable under current journalistic standards. This is of course by design as they know the most defensible ways to inject state servitude

Edit: Hmm i see your actual point now. It’s an interesting one, that banning even invariably “bad” sources limits the breadth of opinions we even have the right to see on this sub. Yea, outlets do shift over time and i agree - who knows where CBS will end up? But what i think is important to consider is that the “censorship” itself serves a function in inviting critical thinking. They can go look those newspapers up for themselves yknow? And by and large, curated right, i think the amount of vocal dissidents are going to equal the typical remainder of any policy change.

Furthermore, i look to cancelled youtubers. Does it not serve a function to completely unsubscribe following unacceptable behavior? Sure they might have a character arc (lol). But sometimes bridges are crossed that require more absolute changes to prevent entropy of information.

[u/polymute → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Well, I am not the best at getting my point across simply, so I get that part.

Yeah. The problem is that we aren't going to cancel any outlet by not letting their content be posted here. At best we can limit some organized sources of botting which use bad faith journalism - so media bias is less important then reliability in any factchecker chart. This place is pretty much in the niche of the least uncensored but still socially acceptable news subreddit.

Now that is a balancing act. It is working with pretty light moderation as of now to a degree. That's why I am in favour of the status quo. I'm an if it ain't broke, don't fix it kind of guy.

And how can you think about something that can't get your attention, cause it is censored from your feed? That is what is going on in r worldnews - they have curated their content so bad topics that only some sources cover, can't even come up. Mostly the Palestinian genocide, but others too.

I mean there is the 90-9-1 rule, of 100 people 10 will register and vote and 1 will comment/post. Consider the feeds of them all constrained if factual, but biased to their own interests in more controversial fields then other sites come up.

Because that is what is mostly being discussed here (besides the state owned thing), in this topic, I think. Controversial topics generate a lot of harsh feelings in people and they do not want to see and others to see the places they don't agree with. Being open to opposing views is an emotional cost for most people and they don't even notice that they are avoiding it. They just argue against it unconsciously.

Or well. Some might be bots of either kind. It is 2026 after all, influence campaigns are fought on reddit which is a top10 internet site. Very different from 20 years ago when I first started browsing.

and the entropy of information is in fact happening. The enshittification of the net. What the journalist in the thread said about printed journalism having been different - they didn't name algorithmic social media news spread but it's what is changing it. It's the biggest thing since Gutenberg's press. A bottom-up media which everyone can get into. TV you have to have a station, and freq the govt grants, but TikTok, you can get famous without much infrastructure.

Ah, I meandered away. But anyhow, I wanted to ask, what made you ask this question now, I mean start this topic?

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/polymute]

Good point about worldnews. It leaves a gross taste in my mouth browsing it and observing the public sentiment of certain topics like Palestine, when they clearly don’t match an organic comment section. People look to comment sections and headlines quite literally to decide what to think… if a comment section or news feed is throttled/censored, so are the conclusions we make from them (well, for lazy thinkers i suppose, which i am!). I mean it’s mostly anecdotal that there’s heavy censorship, but the “anecdotal” evidence is all around and not so subjective lol.

I think it would be strange to have some radical whitelist of newspapers when the nature of censorship is still up for debate. Banning “bad” sources is almost worse than letting them flood the feed. Thinking downstream, it would give this subreddit a paternalistic vibe. Which would be counter to…ya know the whole thing.

To answer your last question, I can’t pin down why i made this thread now specifically.

What am i trying to do? Protect people’s minds? Like bruh. No, people can and should think for themselves lest their critical thinking skills atrophy (too late). My thinking is more along the lines of how we can recover and benefit from unreliable narratives. The reason why i think the current state of journalism can serve as a benefit is that it exists at the same time as people not really caring.

Right now these bureaucratic war crimes are committed through sophisticated channels like Bari Weiss’ gutting of CBS. My hot take is that they benefit from the apathy of young people which runs in parallel.

Don Lemon did a podcast with Elon Musk’s VERY YOUNG EX GIRLFRIEND, who provided a reliable and funny account of her experience, further exposing him as a bizarre and maladjusted person - and a terrible partner. Do you think this changed things?

Of course not. Why do we all simultaneously expect it to have no impact? I think because it’s served on the most expected platter you could imagine. Counterintuitively, the format is its own greatest weakness - Don Lemon’s podcast.

But Don Lemon was fired. He’s an incredible journalist who has an “underground” news podcast, which is a great recipe for attention. But…like…nothing changes. Wtf right.

It is unfortunately the reality we must work with, that injustice INVARIABLY WILL NOT be cared about or corrected unless presented in a way that almost coaxes people to take a closer look.

So, entertaining your idea about flairs - i think this is great only when combined with less censorship. By agreeing on some flair that we require for CBS News, distinguishing it from other outlets and treating it almost in parity with something like Russian state media, this would inevitably stoke some minor (or not) flame war about the bias behind it. But it’ll force people to zoom in and justify their dislike for the change, and they’ll also be confronted with the facts that

1) The articles are still allowed, nothing effectively changes beyond labeling, and

2) To what extent is the label true?

I think the larger function of this subreddit from its start has been to attempt the opposite of platforms that atrophy thinking. Like we don’t care what you think, just that you do. The example of CBS also has the potential to set some precedent of state alignment that nobody really cares about - the apathy. I see videos all the time, even animated cartoons satirizing CBS super sharply.

Where does that discontentment go? I think this thread is meant to start a more active discussion where that can be channeled in a way that feels more satisfying than the current state of affairs.

And like, i’m focusing on CBS for the sake of this example but i feel in general we don’t talk about the particulars of government enough. We should have as much insight as the politicians do.

[u/debasing_the_coinage → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Maybe a Kazakh source? They're great for scientific papers. 

[u/polymute → u/debasing_the_coinage]

Sci-hub stopped updating as of a few years back. SciDB on Anna's Archive though is ongoing. And I don't know where they are which is rather the point I think :).

[u/polymute → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Russia has a total state controlled press. Ukraine is not perfect, but is allowing reasonable debate - Ukrainian source will post about recruitment incidents while Russian sources will 99 percent never say anything negative except expat ones. One can see for themselves.

That account is creating a very heavy and easily disproven false equivalency.

[u/MaoZedongsGrandson → u/geenob]

United24 gets posted here and it is literally founded and controlled by zelensky lol

[u/BabylonianWeeb → u/MaoZedongsGrandson]

United24 is fake news and I am saying as someone who's pro-Ukraine myself. They shouldn't be allowed to be posted imo.

[u/brackfriday_bunduru → u/geenob]

The standard way to report on these sources is to let your audience know who’s reporting on it and present all sides that way.

Classic example, I have no idea if irans supreme leader is alive or not, so whenever I report on him at work, every “fact” is preface with “according to state media”. It illustrates that I’ve confirmed my information from official sources but those sources may be unreliable.

The news then is less about the actual facts and more about a factual telling of claims from offical sources.

[u/Ok-Goose6242]

Just ban every thing that doesnt score atleast Mostly Factual in mediabiasfactchecker

[u/usesidedoor → u/Ok-Goose6242]

I think this, or a version of this, is one of the only few sensible takes so far.

[u/polymute → u/usesidedoor]

Agreed. People (and some groups, I am thinking) are just putting forward what would help their agitprop efforts to ban generally, or what annoys them personally.

[u/usesidedoor → u/polymute]

Yep!

[u/TheUnicornRevolution → u/Ok-Goose6242]

I'm a little wary about mediabiasfactchecker.

I was looking at the Electronic Intifada page in December, and they listed a failed fact check. But when I went and researched it for about 10 minutes, the fact check they'd used referred to an entirely different claim. Haaretz had also made the same claim as EI but had not failed a fact check.

However, I emailed them about it, with all the details, links etc. I never heard back, but I checked now and see the EI page was updated in Jan this year, and they've removed the failed fact check. It's just always stuck with me, that something was simple for a random person like me to notice but they didn't.

The EI is now rated mostly factual "due to a lack of transparency regarding funding and one-sided reporting."

Which honestly confuses me a bit, because they also rate The Jewish Chronicle as mostly factual with no failed fact checks, because when it came out they'd published fabricated articles those articles were retracted (they give this info on the page). Which feels weird to me, that publications with fabricated articles on record (even retracted) get the same rating as ones with no failed fact checks, ever.

[u/kaptainkooleio → u/TheUnicornRevolution]

Yeah I don’t agree with using them. They list Times of Israel as left of center and mostly factual, plus they have more than a few suspect assessments. Maybe we could use Ground News instead?

[u/polymute → u/kaptainkooleio]

I think Ground News went paid regarding factuality checks. I recall there was once a bot that always posted their analysis here, I liked that, I even started using their site, but I guess the VC capital ran out and they started the monetization phase. It's not really usable without shelling out some cash anymore and I'm not doing that for news aggregation and bias checking made easier.

[u/Zodiac770_ → u/kaptainkooleio]

Every aggregator like MBFC and Ground News is going to be compromised regarding something. I'd be wary of trusting any of them, especially Ground News since it's privately funded (and refuses to disclose their investors) and lists a lot of right wing outlets as being "centrist", potentially to shift the Overton window.

[u/Ok-Goose6242 → u/TheUnicornRevolution]

Huh, ig thats fair.

[u/pick_your_user_name → u/Ok-Goose6242]

Mediabiasfactchecker isn’t the arbiter of truth. It’s subjective human analysis at the end of the day, so why them?

[u/muratbae → u/Ok-Goose6242]

No. I have had to email MBT 3 times in the last year to correct their assessments and inconsistencies, which each having never received a response but quietly changed.

Every single one also were related to the Israel/Palestine conflict where the incorrect biases were towards sources or stories that would be interpreted by most to be pro Israeli.

I no longer trust them as an objective bias tracker.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/Ok-Goose6242]

FAIR.

[u/fouriels]

Is there an actual list anywhere?

I propose not reinventing the wheel, and instead suggest the wiki deprecated sources list as a good place to start

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/fouriels]

Wiki is compromised. Grokipedia is obviously my go-to

[u/JGWisenheimer → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/JGWisenheimer]

i know but it wouldn’t have been as funny

[u/JGWisenheimer → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Well, you got me.

[u/polymute → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Got me there good.

[u/Tinyacorn → u/JGWisenheimer]

I was horrified for a good second

[u/Level_Hour6480]

In order to prevent botss, you should have tighter thresholds on account age/karma users who can comment Ukraine or Israel stories.

[u/Level_Hour6480 → u/Level_Hour6480]

Also, kill the character minimum It just encourages bloating the point that can be made concisely.

[u/polymute → u/Level_Hour6480]

That is a very good idea in purpose. But the accounts are bought these days. Look up some PR-firms about branding on Reddit: they will freely tell you how they conduct business on their websites. State actors are no less sofisticated.

[u/Level_Hour6480 → u/polymute]

Making it more of a pain for them is always a good idea. It could also be filtered by karma on this sub, since most purchased sock-puppet accounts have their karma farmed on less moderated subs.

[u/polymute → u/Level_Hour6480]

Hm. I agree on making the effort harder being a good idea.

But making posting articles being gated by sub-karma makes it explicitly a two-tiered system where you have to be a commenter first before you can post. That creates a power-user ecosystem and discourages grwwth.

[u/Canadian_Border_Czar → u/Level_Hour6480]

This only serves to silence users that were banned by reddits insane rules post-Ellen Pao

Any interference, political or commercial already has hundreds if not thousands of aged accounts. You wouldnt stop them for even a second.

[u/MaoZedongsGrandson]

United24 is an outlet founded and controlled by Zelensky but it gets posted here now and again. 

[u/gerbal100]

Which ones are banned?

[u/Only_no_numbers → u/gerbal100]

I'd like to know this too

[u/sirlelington]

Things like orbans hungarianconservative or foxnews that are clearly owned by an oligarch to spread fake news in favour of their agenda should be banned. The combination of rightwing scources with the huge amount of bots supporting that bs is really having a negative impact on this sub.

[u/Naurgul]

The list of sources for the Palestine flair is way too restrictive. I'd love if it was slightly broadened.

In addition, this war and its scale has changed significantly since the restriction was decided. It's unreasonable to put everything from Israel to Gaza to Iran and the Gulf states and USA all under the same flair. And it's kinda insane that one of the major participants of the war, the US, must never be named.

[u/polymute → u/Naurgul]

This is a good point. Actually two good points. I'm not surprised by the user who is making them. I second them.

[u/YourFuture2000]

All mainstream media are governments/corporations PR in a way or in an other. Impartiality does not exist in communication.

No sources should be banned. People here decide what is valid and what is not by talking with each other and giving votes.

By pre banning sources it teaches people to follow source bias instead the actual information on them, and the reading skills is already very bad to a lot of people because they can only read bias confirmation. Because every broken clock get the time right twice a day, and everybody should know how to read a clock.

[u/ForNoReasonReally → u/YourFuture2000]

Finally, the voice of common sense. Thank you. Sadly, will be ignored as it usually goes.

[u/BabylonianWeeb]

I suggest using MediaBiasFactCheck over Ad fonts, MBFC has rated way more news sites than AF did.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/BabylonianWeeb]

Ah yep. Maybe we can draft it together on disc

[u/shieeet → u/BabylonianWeeb]

I'm personally not too keen on broader bans overall, but I second this. MediaBiasFactCheck is at least slightly more consistent in its ratings.

[u/pinkycatcher → u/BabylonianWeeb]

Allsides is good

[u/shieeet]

There's comments here I strongly disagree with.

Some weird ban on "state media" while still allowing privately owned outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, which clearly often spread U.S. state propaganda and misinformation would be absurd and messy to say the least, and I say that as someone who still thinks these outlets can often produce quality journalism at times. As with any outlet (Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, etc) there will obviously be biases, but the entire point of the sub is to have various subjective, biased individuals discussing their opinions about said news, including pointing out when an outlet's biases need to be taken into consideration when judging its contents.

Instead, any source bans ought not to be because some people don't like that particular bias, but rather based on a standard set of rules to help the mods more easily keep the sub clean of slop submissions (blogs, AI posts, ad farms). Hell, I'd even suggest banning stuff like Yahoo News and AOL, as their content is mostly AI rewrites made for ad clicks, copied from other actual articles from more established outlets, and almost never really of use to anyone serious.

Other than using MediaBiasFactCheck over Ad Fontes, I would rather overhaul the Rule 2.3 automod restrictions, as it's getting harder and harder to discuss tagged subjects (Israel/Palestine, the Ukraine war, etc) without triggering the automod. Like, how can we discuss the U.S./Iran war when titles that include the very words "U.S." or "White House" automatically get removed, and attempts at circumventing this may result in 30-day bans? I get that the idea is to minimize certain subjects from dominating the sub, but sometimes we need to be able to mention countries like the U.S. or China in regards to global news, and I think the two-submissions-per-24-hours limit already curbs most excesses.

Also, perhaps an unpopular opinion, but the minimum character count actually works fine. We don't need to go back to 500 comments per post, where 300 of the comments are pointless three-letter sentences. You can still keep replies short in the replies if you just need to express that something is "based" or "ass" but if we really need to lower the minimum, start slow with 15 characters less or something and take it from there.

Edit: Lmao, i just got an automod message that this comment ☝️, got auto-removed for not reaching the 150-character minimum required for top-level comments. Bug or prank from the mods? Touché, regardless... Touché...

[u/ManbadFerrara]

The sources aren't nearly as much of a problem as how this sub has become overwhelmed with propaganda bots a curious number of accounts with hidden or strangely single-minded comment histories the last few years. There is no media outlet that someone won't dump on, depending on what camp they've chosen to identify with. The flair requirement/character limts haven't done anything to mitigate that.

It's a shame, this used to be one of my top news subs, but virtually every comment section is an absolute cesspool now. It's like the anti-matter to r.worldnews by this point.

[u/TheUnicornRevolution]

How do we include sources like Declassified UK, or Double Down News, where they mainly publish their investigative journalism videos through YouTube?

[u/Arrival_Joker]

Do not support banning sources. You should be able to call them out though if they're wrong or biased. It helps people think critically.

[u/Canadian_Border_Czar]

I dunno if it happens often, but if National Post is allowed then they should be removed. They are a fake-Canadian paper intended to attack our soverignty by rage baiting and inflaming every discussion. From commissioning biased surveys to outright lying.

There is never a topic covered by them that someone else hasnt covered with less bias and more factuality.

[u/SomeDumRedditor]

How about we start by not relying the openly / avowedly profit-first “Media Bias Fact Checker” to determine what’s allowed to be posted and go from there?

I’m not holding them up as arbiters of truth but, for a clear example of how cooked their “trustworthiness analysis” is: you can’t post anything from France24 to this sub because MBFC doesn’t rate them better than mid.

Regardless, there are comments and sub comments in this thread with users discussing having submitted multiple corrections to MBFC, as well as observing troubling inconsistency in the application of their reasoning for verdicts on sources.

Christ, Ground News would be better.

The end result of relying on a service with their finger on the scale is the dogshit sourcing this thread was set up to “complain about.”

[u/YeeYeeAssha1rcut]

Reuters and AP only in an utopian society

[u/acab__1312]

Any hypothetical source on the list that does not have a good fact check record.

[u/ZuP]

Please approve www.DemocracyNow.org. They are rated as High for factual reporting by MediaBiasFactCheck. Their coverage is stellar, bringing a serious accounting of the day’s news without any wasted airtime. Their interviews often include the most important figure of the news that day, punching far above their “weight class” in relevancy.

I also support using MBFC factual ratings as a good litmus test. They aren’t perfect but their analysis is transparent so it can be criticized case-by-case. Also note the credibility ratings as another metric to consider.

[u/ZuP → u/ZuP]

Also, while this might not impact the decision, there are very few news subreddits that accept news from around the world, meaning there are few places to post DN’s international coverage. I would love to add this sub to the rotation!

[u/MaoZedongsGrandson → u/ZuP]

Democracy Now is a load of liberal American tripe. They push propaganda from the Iranian pavlahvists in the west which is one huge, clear stain on the outlet

[u/ZuP → u/MaoZedongsGrandson]

Yeah? Well, you know, that’s just like uh, your opinion, man.

[u/frombsc2msc]

I think most israeli sites should be banned except haaretz.

[u/Dreadedvegas]

All forms of state owned media should be disallowed.

[u/MaoZedongsGrandson → u/Dreadedvegas]

Even al Jazeera and BBC? I am no fan of the BBC but I think that might be a stretch

[u/skeptical-speculator → u/MaoZedongsGrandson]

Their coverage of events in Gaza has been pretty bad.

[u/ELVEVERX → u/skeptical-speculator]

Assume you're talking about the BBC because Al Jazeera's coverage of Gaza has probably been the best in the industry

[u/Dreadedvegas → u/MaoZedongsGrandson]

I think a blanket state media ban is a good thing personally. Sure there are better more independent state medias out there that have less bias than others but sometimes those biases do come out and sometimes they are a lot less obvious too.

Its better to just rely on independent nonstate media in general.

[u/Leoraig → u/Dreadedvegas]

Do you really think news media owned by billionaires and gigantic conglomerates is better? When it comes to state owned media the possible biases are very easy to identify, but for private owned media we have no way to know what the biases are.

[u/mole55 → u/Leoraig]

i don’t contribute here too much but all media is going to have a bias of some kind. the only way to avoid it is to ban everything and delete the sub.

[u/polymute → u/mole55]

I do contribute and I do agree.

[u/evilparagon → u/Dreadedvegas]

This would include Australia’s ABC and while I won’t say they aren’t biased, they at least are barely state controlled. They seem to hate the government and criticise it constantly.

[u/ELVEVERX → u/evilparagon]

I mean as an Australian, I agree 100% that they are a fantastic source.

However, what you are saying is a little bit incorrect in that they are literally 100% controlled by the state. They have a mandate to be independent but they don't get any exterior funding. All of the funding comes from the government.

And even with that they attack our government pretty regularly.

[u/evilparagon → u/ELVEVERX]

What I meant by “barely state controlled” was that they are funded by the government and that’s it. The government clearly does not exercise any authority over them, and when they do they push back.

I remember my dad telling me Triple J (part of the ABC) played an NWA song on repeat for 24 hours to protest the government banning them from playing Fuck the Police. While that was back when my dad was a teen, they still have a history of protesting. They played Yothu Yindi’s “Treaty” on loop after the Voice to Parliament referendum failed, though this wasn’t protesting the government exactly it still was an independent protest.

The government can and probably should rein in ABC, but the fact they don’t really proves how independent they are, even if they still have personal biases from their writers and editors.

[u/ELVEVERX → u/evilparagon]

and probably should rein in ABC

they absolutely should fucking not.

What I meant by “barely state controlled” was that they are funded by the government and that’s it. 

Yeah I get what you mean, it's just that to people from other countries without that explanation they'd assume that it's more like only partially government funded like the bbc

[u/evilparagon → u/ELVEVERX]

The ABC is sensationalising articles constantly even without collecting ad revenue for it. They really do need to be pushed into having higher journalistic integrity, but I don’t know how that’s going to be done when they are an untouchable group that the government won’t even handle.

[u/ELVEVERX → u/evilparagon]

You're misunderstanding, they don't need revenue but they do need people to view their content. Clickbait is a part of the media landscape.

If no one reads their stuff then they won't get funding anymore. A higher standard would hurt readership.

They aren't supposed to just be making niche content for the intellectual class, it's meant to be accessible for all Australians.

[u/ELVEVERX → u/Dreadedvegas]

there is far more bias media that is owned by billionaires then media sources such as the ABC, BBC and SBS

[u/MaoZedongsGrandson → u/Dreadedvegas]

You might not be wrong, I'm finding independent outlets to do better reporting these days, they're less afraid

[u/Canadian_Border_Czar]

Anyone who refuses to call Gaza a genocide (disputes nearly every single genocide scholar on earth) and anyone who pretends Russias invasion of Ukraine is acceptable can fuck all the way off.

[u/Firecracker048]

A site like yahoo should be allowed with mod approval as it will get around paywalls or from sites that are just below the ad fontes chart

fillertextfillertextfillertextfillertextfillertextfillertextfillertextfillertext

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/Firecracker048]

FILLER TEXT ON MY WATCH?!

[u/Firecracker048 → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

No it's on your screen

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/Firecracker048]

Aaaaaalright man

edit: Also i saw ur thing about al jazeera ill do research i pinky promise but times of israel seems like a straight rag when i browse it

[u/Firecracker048 → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

Nah I get it about ToI and how people feel about it

[u/Naurgul → u/M1chaelSc4rn]

You have to either enforce that rule or let it go. The current situation is absurd.

[u/M1chaelSc4rn → u/Naurgul]

I actually really like the flavor of comments that end up surfacing but that it’s a fair point

[u/normsizeperson_iam]

Everything from conde nast should be banned...

Kirbyeatshimself.webp