Rules

Noboru said:
I'd like to know first what counts as "credible news source"

Do we just trust the possibly biased "mediabias" or any other "fact-checking" sites or are there other ways to determine the credibility of a news source and who decides what is credible and what not?

Meusnier said:
What would you propose instead?

Noboru said:
That we allow every source and focus on the important parts and then think about whether or not it could be credible. Reputation is just one method to determine whether something is credible. The other would be if there are many others saying the same or similar things and first and foremost: if the situation is plausible in the first place
I'd be also more up for only delegitimizing a specific news story or nucleus of it when a vast majority of the users here come to the conclusion that it's an unreliable news story based on multiple factors rather than just relying on some reputation or "fact checkers"

Meusnier said:

The point is that the sources rated too low have the consistent habit of making sensationalist titles and manipulate information when they do not tell obvious lies. I just want to hear of an example of an important event that occurred and that no credible medium reported.

Noboru said:
It's not how a news story is presented that should be any major criterion on how credible it is. Tabloids like the Daily Mail are still good for the pictures and their simple language. If you want to dig deeper, there are of course better sources, like the sources that are linked or mentioned
Also, if you go by the criterion of "manipulative", then even public broadcasters are in a way manipulative when they push their agenda, rather than staying neutral

It really all depends on the viewpoint like with this example here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/robert-fisk-osama-bin-laden-interview-sudan-1993-b1562374.html

Can't think of much examples right of the bat, but this is just one example of an event that initially didn't get much attention:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims/

If you want to dig deeper, there are of course better sources, like the sources that are linked or mentioned.

TheSirCyrus said:
@Meusnier I think ensuring that the sources people provide go through the same checks and verification processes, regardless of what the source is, is important and should remain for the time being.

TheSirCyrus said:
@Meusnier I was simply agreeing with your post that stated that we should use https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ in regards to assessing which sources people use stand to scrutiny. I apologize as my previous post may have given you the impression that I was suggesting we use something in addition to what you had provided.

Noboru said:
@Meusnier: If I understood you right, you basically want to create the same rules that Current Events had before it was closed down. And you want to prevent that only a few people flood the board with topics that may or may not contain some form of agenda. Or maybe, the restriction is meant so that we all focus at one topic at a time

Anyway, it's good that you want to make rules and discuss it openly, but nitpicking isn't doing any of us any favor. Plus, this place is already like a graveyard. Under these circumstances, tightening the rules and putting restrictions like that turns off people who might be up for conversations but eventually lose interest, because the other side ends up being too nitpicky about the sources that it becomes more important to them who says something than what is being said

Meusnier said:
This rule about sources only applies for controversial topics. And yes, if one create ten threads promoting Flat Earth, I doubt that anyone wants to read that.

This is not nitpicking... Just to be clear, if you want to use the Daily Mail, you can do so in a reply of yours, not in the OP. Just find another source. The requirement is very basic.

Those rules are precisely meant so that this place does not become some new /pol that will make most people unwilling to participate[...]

By the way, I choose precise that there is no character limit here.

Noboru said:
Yeah, unless you're into it, Flat Earth doesn't sound like an appealing topic

What about using it as an additional source?

Ironically, this could much rather make more people willing to participate. Btw: there are no nazis any longer; only ex-nazis at best and pseudo-nazis mostly

Is there even one on the technical side for club replies?

Meusnier said:

Using https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ seems like a good solution to me. What would you propose instead?

For example, The Daily Mail is not a credible source, and youtube videos are never reliable sources either. And for the record, the above site confirms that this journal is a terrible reference:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Desolated said:

I've rest my case about my issue with the media bias fact check, which is basically it says that all state-run media is 100% always bad, whereas a private sector run media can be good or bad. This is just an awful overall method because like what we have discussed before, it's only the fact check that matters, not whether it's run by a state/private sector.

Also since ideologically I'm advocating for the abolishment of private property, using this website as a gold standard gave a huge setbacks because we have to rely on news published by the private sector, which more than often their words can be molded to fit their political agenda.

149597871 said:
I suggest the reliable source rule extends past the opening post. Otherwise, you can use a credible news article, intentionally misinterpret it, and then flood the thread with a bunch of dubious sources once someone questions your claim.

Meusnier said:

That seems like a good idea to me, but perhaps a bit too strict and hard to implement. For example, The Guardian is considered to have "mixed" factual reporting but one should still be able to use it when it gives an interesting perspective on a given topic.

Sending twenty articles in a reply should definitely be considered as a form of trolling or thread derailing.

Meusnier said:

You are confusing facts and opinions here. Trust me, I hate this neocolonialist kind of titles as much as you do, but that does not mean that the factual reporting is erronous. For example, reading the Western press on Afghanistan these days is properly disgusting, but you can get to learn about what is really going on.

Public=propaganda since no one can control what is said, especially when information emanates from countries like China or North Korea.

149597871 said:


That is a good point.

Although I had in mind sources like Breitbart, Russia Today, and Xinhua whose sole purpose is spreading weaponized propaganda. Banning sources such as The Guardian, CNN, or Fox News would be too much, yeah.

Desolated said:
What's wrong if it's from China? The west make it seems as if China don't have press freedom. South China Morning Post from time to time would spew some liberal shit and they're still not being ousted for that.

Meusnier said:

I agree that those sources are very close to propaganda, but I do not remind seeing them used that often in CE, so I prefer not to forbid using them in one's posts for now. That seems a little too strict to me, but the rule may change in the future.


I wish I could manage to convey the basic idea that journalism only makes sense when one is legally accountable for anything he may writes. In democracies, there are organs that check the accuracy of claims emitted by the government, like independent agencies, or non-profit organisations. There is a wide difference between "spouting some liberal shit" and "harsh and realistic critics against anything about China." Press freedom means that only defamation can land you a ticket to prison (besides some secret defense topics I guess...).

Desolated said:
You mean they have to be telling about only the negatives when it comes to China? Well there were sexpat YouTubers who has already done that since China became less of a sexpat paradise for years. They moved out a year ago though I think.

Besides, have u ever seen any private news outlet of a certain country making "harsh and realistic critics against anything" about the country they're based on? For examples, USA? And of course, it has to be as harsh as how the western media nowadays bombards China with criticism.

Before you mention anything about "the US government did better than China's therefore such news doesn't exists.", This guy right here tweeted about the atrocities done by mostly USA. So clearly that wasn't the case. And yes, the western media bombards China with criticism as much as this guy over here, or perhaps even more.

https://mobile.twitter.com/queeralamode?

By the same logic you people said that China don't have press freedom, there's also no press freedom in the US.

Meusnier said:

Sorry for the late reply, I was a bit overwhelmed with notifications recently.

Of course not, I did not say that. Not so sure what you are trying to say with "sexpats," but I see no reasons to equate economical immigration to sex immigration.

Yes, of course. Many newspapers criticize harshly the foreign policy of the said country, so I am not too sure what you are about here. Of course, Western media will be more critical towards China since they bow to America.

Odd phrase, I am not a negationist. In fact, I do not need to go to Twitter to get to know about those atrocities that are also mentioned in the mainstream press. On the last event you might be referring too, there is even a BBC article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58380791

Of course, the BBC will take more precautions with their claims as you can see in the article, because contrary to this guy with an odd Frenglish name, they are legally responsible for what they write.

149597871 said:


That is a good point.

Although I had in mind sources like Breitbart, Russia Today, and Xinhua whose sole purpose is spreading weaponized propaganda. Banning sources such as The Guardian, CNN, or Fox News would be too much, yeah.

Desolated said:


of course you want to ban the news outlets that's blatantly anti-NATO. Won't change my opinion that NATO is a terrorist organization though.

149597871 said:


You still struggle to understand what "factual reporting" or "conflict of interests" mean. Being anti-NATO is one thing. Being funded by the enemies of NATO and known for spreading propaganda is a whole different story. Anyway, believe in whatever you think is right. I will not try to change your opinion this time.

Desolated said:

But propaganda=/=fake news. You can publish a news that's very biased anti-NATO but still factual. The enemy of my enemy is my friend until my enemy is dead, so I'd 100% support these "enemies of NATO".

149597871 said:


Which is another strawman. These sources have very low factual reporting on top of being biased. The numerous failed fact checks prove it. You should improve your fact-checking skills for your own sake; otherwise, you will end up being a puppet.

149597871 said:


Why do I have to "prove" a failed fact-check? The burden of proof would be on you, in this case. See the failed fact-checks list and try to debunk it. LOL

mediabiasfactcheck.com said:
A factual search reveals the Xinhua has not failed a fact check by an IFCN fact-checker.

Desolated said:
Because your favorite right-wing media bias fact checker website didn't provide any data for Xinhua and RT

149597871 said:


You said that bias does not matter and now you are trying to discredit a fact-checker for being biased? :D

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/

While RT Bemoans Ukrainian Propaganda, it is Russians who Feel the Disinfo Fallout – FALSE
RT: OPCW Got its Chemical Weapons Samples from ‘Jihadists’ – FALSE
RT Distorts Disinformation Detective’s Guide to Russian Trolls – FALSE
RT’s FARA examined. Part I – FALSE
RT: US Special Envoy Says Russia Seeks to ‘Freeze’ Conflict in … – FALSE

Click on the links for all the details.

Breitbart and Xinhua are also there, if you want to check them.

mediabiasfactcheck.com said:
A factual search reveals the Xinhua has not failed a fact check by an IFCN fact-checker.

Although they completely lack linked sourcing they do provide credible sources such as Brookings Institute, Stratfor and Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, through the use of quotes.

Desolated said:

I said bias does not matter for the news outlet, not for the fact checking site which is used as gold standard to say whether the news outlet is credible or not. Otherwise, they can only list the right-wing news outlet as the only credible news outlet.

I have read the Xinhua one. It said:


So yep, they DID NOT fail the fact check.

149597871 said:


Nice mental gymnastics. In other words, bias only matters when you can use it to discredit those who do not agree with your narrative. And you ignored Russia Today's failed fact checks. Very honest arguing.

Sure, Xinhua is criticized for the lack of transparency and press freedom and the obvious conflict of interests since they are the official press agency of the Chinese Communist Party.

Desolated said:

>Lack of press freedom

Please, the "Land of the Free" also "lacks press freedom" as much as China. Ever heard of Julian Assange? Yet they said it as if China is super strict, while US isn't.

149597871 said:


That is just more dishonesty and logical fallacies. You ignored 90% of what I said, and are now trying to shift the focus on the US.

Desolated said:

Sexpat is a derogatory term for people who want a greencard of some country by marrying its citizen and thus enjoys lots of welfare and stuff while having minimum jobs. Think of people who do the 90 day fiancee reality show. China used to be sexpat paradise until like 2012.

Here's the thing. With the "reputable news outlet" being far more critical to China since they bow to America, it means that the news here will be one-sided since the news outlet that doesn't bow to America would ne categorized as "unreputable". That's basically all that I'm trying to say: The news posted here can't be as critical to America as if it's critical to China, DPRK, etc.

fishyrishi said:
I suggest to make the two week no bump rule to one month. One month can be called as 'current' and this is a much smaller club than the previous board, so this can increase the clubs activity

Auron_ said:

@Narmy No one disputes that every single news organization (including your "alternative media") will be framing things in a way that suits their political leanings to shape the public opinion a certain way, and that was certainly the case with the support of Bush's "war on terror", but very rarely to the point of actual misinformation. There is a huge difference between framing things favorably for one entity such as not including the pushback one has received when relaying their speech (which the apt reader can hopefully identify) and lying. It is known that the highest concentration of unreliable and downright malicious news comes from social media, and it is exacerbated tenfold by populists who believe that every single institution is corrupt and there cannot be any power held that isn't then used to trample on the common man.

Narmy said:
I am sure they are fine for everyday news, but for the more controversial (from the point of view of the companies who fund the media) topics such as war you are likely to get a more accurate story from citizen journalists, whistleblowers, etc. It makes no sense to exclude sources that aren't backed by a corporation just because of some rule MAL put in place well after the CE board was established.

Basically if you followed this rule back during 9/11 you would have to lock any thread denying weapons of mass destruction.

Rule 7 bis. Please quote the entire text of one of the quoted articles, especially when it is behind a paywall.

Rule 8. A member can post up to two "controversial" threads a day, as long as they are not on the same topic. This includes, but is not limited to, topics relating to gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, abortion, sexual assault, immigration, hate groups, political ideologies, controversial public figures/leaders, etc. Please be nice and civil. No spam and spoilers. No NSFM/NSFW.

149597871 said:
I fixed some typos and added some changes for clarity, or at least that is my interpretation of rule 8.