• RedClouds@lemmygrad.ml
    441·
    4 months ago

    Remember everyone, when a liberal tells you that you’re cherry picking, and just citing your own sources, and ignoring Wikipedia, and are biased… Just remember that they all do the exact same thing, even in their professional media.

    • loathesome dongeater@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      29·
      4 months ago

      The sad truth is that “liberals”, or more specifically, the people who take the word of CNN and NYT as gospel, do not know or care about the truthiness of their soothsayers. How many decades have it been since the Korean and Vietnamese invasions by the US and orgs like CNN are still considered stenographers. My doubts about the verifiability of the laws of nature do not stem from the fallibility of human perception but the incentive and unaccountability for lying about shit like this.

  • AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
    29·
    4 months ago

    Here’s a super fun exercise anyone can do with a bit of free time. If ever you read an article regurgitating some claim of an atrocity by any western enemy, follow the links to the claim. It won’t be much of a rabbit hole. In general, for a 4 yol claim (so the October 7 tales may not fit exactly) you’ll be linked to a 2 week old article, which will link a 6 month old one, which will link a 2 yo one, which send you to:

    1. Wikipedia, which will have already been re-written citing a 1 yo article
    2. A UN transcript, HRW article, or something equally worthless of someone repeating the claim
    3. The best approximation of an original source

    That last one is extremely rare, but it’s always magnificent. You find out stuff like how the 1-3 million interned Uyghurs claim comes from a pseudo-study that remotely talked to 8 people and nothing else.

  • supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml
    15·
    4 months ago

    They want to believe it. That’s it. Nothing more. We don’t need to debunk or give it enormous amounts of time. Some people are just racist, it’s not about being misinformed. There are people that are evil. I can’t believe we don’t consider that as an option more often. That includes the consumers.

    • ryepunk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      12·
      4 months ago

      Nyt hired a person who’d never been a journalist to provide coverage of Palestine. They had already liked tweets and shit that called Palestinians barbaric scum. And the reporter hired her cousin to provide reports from Israel. She then produced the vast majority of the coverage calling the Oct 7th attack and giant rape campaign by Hamas. Recently the intercept double checked her work and discovered that the original nyt story has no sources backing up its claim, it was all invented wholesale. They did discover that the author had tried to find sources or evidence of the mass rapes and repeatedly been unable to prove it. They still went with the story. Nyt knew this because their own shitty daily news podcast (the daily) wanted to run the story too, but they couldn’t get any sources on the claims of mass rapes on Oct 7 either. Nyt is still backing the claims made in the original piece and the author.

      That pretty much it, terrible journalism and they know it but it pushes the narrative the policy makers want so it goes out regardless of merit or truth.