Context:

The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.

Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    1·
    9 months ago

    There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews

    Not really, no. They DEFINITELY don’t have a whole topic area where they’re generally reliable, like Mint has with Palestine.

    I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.

    If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article.

    That would be the case if it was a general interest news story, sure, but not an article about solidarity amongst football fans.

    While rage bait tends to get circulated widely, only certain outlets will publish a POSITIVE story, even if it DOES relate to a controversial subject.

    If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source

    Unless its reliability varies from subject to subject. Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.

    But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.

    I got there by applying logic to demonstrate how illogical and prejudiced your absolutist stance is.

    If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.