The Dahiya doctrine and Hannibal directive are key to making sense of Israel's actions in Gaza over the past two years, and yet the BBC hasn't mentioned them once in its coverage since 7 October 2023. Harriet Williamson reports.
Careful with these kind of bias or fact checkers, as they’re only relevant on the left/center/right axis, which is a biased framework in and of itself. A centered position, which these checkers claim to be the least biased, are absolutely dependant on the Overton window and that window is currently so far off to the right, that any slightly leftist position might seem radical or even unthinkable.
It also only makes sense, if you are some kind of hyper centrist, absolutely ignoring what “right” and “left” actually mean and then proclaim that the center is a good thing and any extreme perspective off from the center is a bad thing. That’s either willfully ignorant or a right-wing perspective trying to appease to unpolitical people.
This fact checker also proclaims mixed factual reporting in their summary, but in the segment it says “Failed Fact Checks: None in the Last 5 years”. This is dumb and misleading.
One can see this kind of bias by them branding “concern for climate change, and racial-social equality” as far-left perspectives, while a sane person would see these things as the fucking bare minimum. Everything less than that is de facto regressive and right-wing.
Overall, we rate Novara Media Far-Left Biased based on editorial positions that favor anti-capitalism and the promotion of Luxury Communism. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources and one-sided hyper-partisan perspectives. (D. Van Zandt 05/08/2022) Updated (02/21/2024)
Reason number what 20 why mbfc is terrible at being both a bias checker and fact checker.
Ofc. But you are only talking about the Left/ Right Pol. spectrum. Its the " Mixed Reporting" bit which to me is relevant.
Also, if I were to report for example about Trump from the Rep. or Right side, would you say the same? Or if I used a zionist new-soutlet. Not that I would though, it’s an example.
Careful with these kind of bias or fact checkers, as they’re only relevant on the left/center/right axis, which is a biased framework in and of itself. A centered position, which these checkers claim to be the least biased, are absolutely dependant on the Overton window and that window is currently so far off to the right, that any slightly leftist position might seem radical or even unthinkable.
It also only makes sense, if you are some kind of hyper centrist, absolutely ignoring what “right” and “left” actually mean and then proclaim that the center is a good thing and any extreme perspective off from the center is a bad thing. That’s either willfully ignorant or a right-wing perspective trying to appease to unpolitical people.
This fact checker also proclaims mixed factual reporting in their summary, but in the segment it says “Failed Fact Checks: None in the Last 5 years”. This is dumb and misleading.
One can see this kind of bias by them branding “concern for climate change, and racial-social equality” as far-left perspectives, while a sane person would see these things as the fucking bare minimum. Everything less than that is de facto regressive and right-wing.
Reason number what 20 why mbfc is terrible at being both a bias checker and fact checker.
Ofc. But you are only talking about the Left/ Right Pol. spectrum. Its the " Mixed Reporting" bit which to me is relevant.
Also, if I were to report for example about Trump from the Rep. or Right side, would you say the same? Or if I used a zionist new-soutlet. Not that I would though, it’s an example.