- US occupying forces in northern Syria are continuing to plunder natural resources and farmland, a practice ongoing since 2011
- Recently, US troops smuggled dozens of tanker trucks loaded with Syrian crude oil to their bases in Iraq.
- The fuel and convoys of Syrian wheat were transported through the illegal settlement of Mahmoudia.
- Witnesses report a caravan of 69 tankers loaded with oil and 45 with wheat stolen from silos in Yarubieh city.
- Similar acts of looting occurred on the 19th of the month in the city of Hasakeh, where 45 tankers of Syrian oil were taken out by US forces.
- Prior to the war and US invasion, Syria produced over 380 thousand barrels of crude oil per day, but this has drastically reduced to only 15 thousand barrels per day.
- The country’s oil production now covers only five percent of its needs, with the remaining 95 percent imported amidst difficulties due to the US blockade.
- The US and EU blockade prevents the entry of medicines, food, supplies, and impedes technological and industrial development in Syria.
Professors of Practice tend to have experience in the industry they are professors in. Their reputation is hinged on their achievements, and they don’t cite their degree as being instrumental to their credibility.
Edit: professors are also, y’know, subject to scrutiny and can’t hide behind anonymity when they get things wrong.
The site’s history speaks for itself. Because or in spite of him, it’s a solid way to at-a-glance assess an outlet. It is not the whole story, it’s not even a great story, but it’s a start that’s pretty solid.
How would you support this claim? It’s solid because it exists and people read it?
Burden of proof is on you here. What about the site are you disputing here?
It’s credibility and reliability, which I’ve already done and which you’ve acknowledged.
Just do the legwork to critique the source, it’s not that hard. There’s no need to cite bad sources just because they exist.
You need to show it’s a bad source. Discrediting the founder does not satisfy that requirement.
It’s just an ad hominem with extra steps.
yeah, pretty much. They need to show us an example of why it’s not effective at its mission. Preferably not just pointing to the founder and saying “he doesn’t have the proper degree.“
I don’t think you quite understand what an ad hominem attack is. The fact is, the operator of MBFC has no accountability if they get anything wrong because nobody knows who or what he is. The fact is, the operator of MBFC uses his degrees and experience as justification for his “scientific” evaluation of media bias.
I’m not making any claims that the operator isn’t making themselves.
The OP is using this “source” to discredit other sources. If you’re going to disprove another source, prove that your own source is legitimate in spite of the questions regarding its credibility.
i’ll bite:
i went to the media bias fact check page for radio free asia, pushed control-f and typed “cia”. there were three hits, as part of the words “politicians”, “appreciate” and “social”.
radio free asia was literally founded by the cia as an anticommunist us propaganda mouthpiece.
well, maybe they don’t exactly use those words but they might basically say the same thing… what does mbfc’s rfa history section look like?
well, that’s glossing over and avoiding some important points, but at least they’re admitting it’s promoting “USA interests with a less direct propaganda approach”. lets see how they score a source they described as literal government propaganda mouthpiece:
oh, the US government propaganda outfit serving “content in nine Asian languages for audiences in six countries” is left-center and highly factual! Who would have known!
the thing that makes media bias fact check a bad source is that it relies on a one dimensional left-right bias continuum and another one dimensional veracity continuum.
anyone with their head screwed on straight, no matter their personal politics or country of origin can tell without a shadow of a doubt that rfa isn’t a good source because it’s a propaganda arm of the us government. when evaluated on the metrics of leftness or rightness under the rubric of mbfc though, it shows up as “left-center” and when put to the test of authenticity by mbfc it is determined to be highly factual.
media bias fact check is a bad source. it cannot, by design, communicate the reality of a source’s bias because the way it evaluates bias is constrained by and i’d say warped into only what fits it’s highschool-in-1999-ass rubric of bias and accuracy!