Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 18:47:37 UTC
By: Bill Berkrot, Susan Fenton
About Reuters
Country: United Kingdom
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Rating: Least Biased / Very High / High
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Wikipedia Rating: Generally Reliable
Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 14:56:24 UTC
By: Guy Faulconbridge, Filipp Lebedev
About: Reuters
Country: United Kingdom
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Rating: Least Biased / Very High / High
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Wikipedia Rating: Generally Reliable
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Writing by: Tom Perry
Editing by: Frances Kerry
Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 03:30:27 UTC
Wall Street Journal – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Right-Center
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Article By: Kejal Vyas
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 14:22:57 UTC
Haha, I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. You’ll notice both MBFC and Ad Fontes were given that status primarily due to being Self-Published. However I wouldn’t consider MBFC or Ad Fontes to be the be-all and end-all perfectly authoritative source either.
You want to debate the specifics of an article from a source I find unreliable. I don’t want to. I wouldn’t want to if someone was posting something from Israel Hayom either.
The beauty of Wikipedia is they cite sources, keep edit history, and have a strong ethos of neutrality.
Smaller articles are more prone to being abused due to the sheer scale of Wikipedia, but are still subject to moderation if reported.
I don’t view Wikipedia articles as definitive, but generally I trust the community and don’t believe it has been overrun by right wing groups like NGO Monitor.
There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia
Media coverage of the crisis there has been very biased and superficial.
Can you be more specific? Is there any particular coverage that you find biased and superficial?
I will admit that some outlets undoubtably cover this better than others, but that is the case in all conflicts.
I tend to side with Wikipedia in believing The Cradle unreliable in their news coverage, and wanted to pass it along.
They are are listed in the same category as the Anti Defamation League on the topic of Israel. Something that The Cradle chose to write about without disclosing their own status.
Foreign Policy – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: High
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
By: Pierre Espérance
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 22:32:15 UTC
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Also By: Daria Sito-Sucic in Sarajevo, Stevo Vasiljevic in Podgorica and Fatos Bytyci in Pristina
Edited: Jason Neely and Andrew Heavens
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 20:44:44 UTC
Foreign Policy – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: High
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 21:41:42 UTC
For those who don’t know, The Cradle is banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source.
The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.
I wish reporting like this would bother to define what they mean when they say children. Are we talking about 16 and 17 year olds, or are we talking about 7 and 8 year olds? They mention a single 7 year old who was released “hours later” after supposedly being arrested and “beaten on his hands” whatever that means exactly.
Also, if anyone has information on the primary source for the article, the Palestinian Prisoners Club, I’d be interested in learning more. From a quick search, Qadura Fares, a Fatah/PA politician is cited as the President/Head in several articles. The Wikipedia page redirects to this article, and this Facebook page comes up in a quick search. I didn’t find anything else of consequence unfortunately.
Edit: After a little more digging, looks like some articles refer to the same group as The Palestinian Prisoner’s Society (PPS). I believe this is their, currently down, official website. Their Instagram, Twitter/X
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Reporting by: Emilie Madi in Beirut; Aziz Taher, Hassan Hankir in Sidon
Writing by: Maya Gebeily
Editing by: Alex Richardson
Archive Link: June 20, 2024 4:42 PM UTC
Wall Street Journal – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Right-Center
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Article By: Niharika Mandhana
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 00:17:28 UTC
For what it’s worth, this is the only article I can find that says it was for burning “plantations.”
From NBC News
The official said that while the weapon was not sanctioned by military leadership, the troops were fulfilling a legitimate military task of burning away thick shrubbery along the border where Hezbollah fighters sometimes hide.
Or, if you prefer an outlet with a different perspective…
From Middle East Eye
Israeli media suggested that launching projectiles into Lebanon was aimed at exposing Hezbollah fighters using the dense foliage as cover in the area. It could also be in preparation for a ground invasion.
The Guardian – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: Medium Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Left / Reliable
Article By: Lisa O’Carroll
After that link I literally added redacted screenshots of a primary source that was published by ISIS
It does not matter what the publisher of the document in the first link thinks about Zionism. I don’t know and I don’t care.
Mayhaps the people of Israel aren’t a hive mind and different groups want different things?
Is it possible that many of want aid entering and work hard for it to flow into Gaza, while others violently oppose it?