An anonymous physician, in a letter viewed by Haaretz, has warned Israeli officials about what's going on at a field hospital inside a notorious detention center.  By Brett Wilkins Common Dreams A doctor at an Israeli field hospital inside a notorious detention center where hundreds of Pa
  • sik0fewl@lemmy.caEnglish
    192·
    7 months ago

    While I have no doubt that there are war crimes happening, has anyone heard of this outfit?

    • BMatthew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      272·
      7 months ago

      No, but most of what they are quoting is from a major Israeli newspaper. This was out several days ago, but didn’t get picked up here in the states.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      254·
      7 months ago

      MBFC for Constitution News:

      Overall, we rate Consortium News Left Biased based on story selection and advocacy that strongly favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting due to one-sided opinion-based reporting that is difficult to verify. […]

      In general, Consortium News holds strong left-leaning biases with a focus on anti-war and anti-imperialism perspectives. Most information is properly sourced, but many stories are opinion-based and sometimes cannot be proven correct or incorrect.

      • vortic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        7 months ago

        Ad Fontes Media rates Consortium News in the Hyper-Partisan Left category of bias and as Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues in terms of reliability. Consortium News was launched in 1995 as the first investigative news magazine based on the Internet. The founder, journalist Robert Parry, was dedicated to breaking the pattern of “silliness and propaganda” that he saw in American journalism. Consortium News is published by the Consortium for Independent Journalism Inc.

        Just some additional context.

        • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          7 months ago

          Robert Earle Parry (June 24, 1949 – January 27, 2018)[1] was an American investigative journalist. He was known for his role in covering the Iran–Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking in the U.S. scandal in 1985.

          Just some additional additional context.

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caEnglish
      103·
      7 months ago

      No. Their MBFC page is an interesting read:

      It is considered the first alternative investigative journalism internet news source. Consortium News covers stories deeply and has been responsible for uncovering scandals and important information that was not found/covered by the mainstream media.

      They also get a bit philosophical about the nature of truth, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen before.

      Haaretz actually reported this first (there’s an archive link in the article) and they’re high credibility.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        163·
        7 months ago

        It does matter. Anyone is susceptible to propaganda, and one of the classic ways to promote propaganda is to create a source that seems credible but which is presenting biased information, either in what they conver or how they cover it. Given the information war being waged with real lives at stake, it is not inappropriate to ask other people what they know about an unfamiliar site.

        And they may look legitimate to you, but someone else might notice something you’ve overlooked, or they may know something about the source. Kudos to OP for asking the question and trying to be a more discriminatory consumer of news instead of just accepting whatever comes across their path as truth.

          • Decoy321@lemmy.worldEnglish
            73·
            7 months ago

            What is a problem is fake news.

            Indeed. That’s why that user asked the simple question. They’re trying to determine the veracity of the information from that website.

            Bias and factuality are different concepts. One source can print wildly biased, yet probably true information. While another can provide absolutely unbiased disinformation.

              • Decoy321@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                7 months ago

                I dunno, my dude. That’s still quite a reach to go from a simple question to automatically determining that it’s a hatchet job.

                I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re assuming a lot more than I normally works from a singular question.

                There’s a significant difference between the two questions in your first sentence: quality of verifiability. The goal here is to determine accuracy anyways. Asking that directly will never get you an answer that you should accept at face value.

                If I ask “is this accurate?”, any sourceless responses lack weight. “yes” holds as much proof as “no.”

                But “has anyone heard of this” is a much lower barrier of veracity. Answers themselves won’t determine the accuracy of the article, just whether or not anyone can help establish credibility.

                It’s important to question and verify sources, no matter who it is. Criticizing someone who does makes you no better than anyone pushing propaganda.