• BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s the point of the site. It doesn’t have any preference and just points out the lack of different perspectives instead of saying that a single perspective is correct. You are free to have your own opinion and filter the content through your own lens while knowing which facts are verified, unverified or misleading.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s the point of the site. It doesn’t have any preference and just points out the lack of different perspectives instead of saying that a single perspective is correct.

      Not presenting viewpoints of the Russians who shot the missles about how they feel about shooting the missles is not a lack of balance.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Isn’t it? That’s what neutral means. But, that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with not including their perspective in this article. The point of the site, is to let you decide what is relevant, instead of someone else making that decision and pushing it down your throat.

        People keep saying that everything is biased, but when confronted with what no bias looks like, they see that bias is not so bad as long as people are aware of it.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It has no relevance. Russians shot missiles into Ukraine. The facts of the matter are that Russians are the aggressors here, and this is a war entirely of their making. The Ukrainian perspective about the effects of the missile attack on them is what matters to an article about the missile attack on Ukraine.

          Not including the Russian perspective isn’t evidence of bias, it’s omitting things which don’t matter. We already know that Russia invaded Ukraine, and that Russia will rubble-ize it rather than surrender unless they are aggressively beaten back by Ukraine.

          You’ll notice I didn’t complain about the parts where they pick on the language used in the article - because those are valid complaints. Expecting the article to include the Russian perspective about the smoking craters they left all across Ukraine is patently ridiculous.

          Sometimes facts are just facts. Russia is objectively the nation who started the war, they are objectively the aggressors, and they are objectively responsible for all related death and destruction. We don’t need to be sure we include a sentence saying, “And by the way the Russians did this because they would really like to control Ukraine” every time - that’s part of the setting.

        • atro_city@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          The USAmerican brainrot is poisoning minds to make it seem like there’s only one perspective in life: the one they agree with.

          It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

          ~Not Aristotle (probably Lowell L. Bennion)

    • commandar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Partisan

      Score: 3    Explanation: The article primarily reflects Rhianna’s perspectives and narratives while omitting Chris Brown’s viewpoints.    Suggestion: Include statements from Chris Brown regarding the beating for balance.