The White House has condemned an attack on an aid convoy heading to Gaza by Israeli settlers who threw packages of food into the road and set fire to the vehicles.
Video of the incident on Monday at Tarqumiya checkpoint, west of Hebron in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, showed settlers blocking the trucks and throwing boxes of much-needed supplies on the ground. Photographs from the scene showed piles of damaged aid packages and drifts of rice and flour across the road.
Late on Monday, photos began circulating on social media showing the trucks on fire.
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
About MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Alternative Rating
What’s the credibility of mediabiasfactcheck.com?
Very low. It’s basically the hobby of a single conservative Zionist (assisted by some volunteer and paid freelancers, though there’s no public transparency about who does what and when) pretending to be a reputable arbiter of truth and bias.
Coincidentally, the first article that came out of that thing from a poster was Israel lobby propaganda that said that Russian propaganda on social media is the source of worldwide antisemitism. It has no credibility. It disseminates state run propaganda because “if it comes from the government, or a politician, it must be true” and the think tanks that work for them.
Lol yea, but is Dave M. Van Zandt really a Zionist? I hadn’t heard that.
My favorite part of their Wikipedia page is
…
Seriously, any of these company run “bias” checkers are completely pointless and at best are directly useful for pushing specific propaganda under the guide of they have been neutral up until then.
Thinking you know better because you know what someone else tells you the bias is of the statement doesn’t actually make people more informed it just makes them insufferable liberals.
Picked by mods…
It saddens me that you have to provide source credibility. Media Literacy is important.
Source credibility systems are just outsourcing trust to a third party. Its a ministry of truth on top of an already fucked media landscape, i dont get why people even recognize this as a real valid concept at all.
The problem is that there is not much choice, how many news outlets are there? I can’t keep tabs on just the ones in the US. And i can’t read a bunch of unrelated articles just to start forming an opinion of the source. So it makes sense that you instead have a selected party do that for you. But they will have their own bias. I assume republicans will have their own version of politifact due to their views being against reality. But you are right that these systems can’t be trusted either, but the devil you know is better then the devil you don’t
It’s certainly valid if you treat it as one data point and not the end all be all.
Not when it has its own unadmitted biases. For example, the guy who pretty much IS MediaBiasFactCheck is an avowed “Israel is always right and if you ever say otherwise it’s automatically antisemitic” level Zionist, which is most of the reason for The Guardian’s factuality being listed as mixed rather than high or even very high.
A hidden bias like that makes a fact and bias checker worse than no checking.
deleted by creator