- 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.
Who you calling a “lib?”
If you’re not a liberal then what are you? A socialist? A monarchist? The Republican and Democratic parties are both liberal ones, as were the Federalist, Democratic-Republican, and Whig parties before them.
I’m a critical thinker and student of public policy and global society and political discourse?
I have a deep and lasting dislike of authoritarianism, no matter the political orientation?
I value media literacy and critical thought?
I dislike the exploitative trend of capitalism, it believe that ny ultimate purpose is to use my own privilege to try and soften the blow for humanity in whatever small way I can, thinking globally in scope while emphasizing engagement with my own immediate community?
But really, I’m just weirded out by the attack on critical thought around here, when all I did was question a questionable source. I’m also wondering why the fuck my political orientation is relevant here, and why you think you’re able to condescend to me in such a childish way.
You’re literally the one appealing to the authority of MBFC here, irony is truly dead.
removed by mod
It’s obvious they’re not talking about that type of liberal.
@yogthos and I and many people on lemmy.ml almost always are.
Ok?, they weren’t and you know that, which means your response was meant to detract from the original argument and to prevent any further constructive communication.
This subthread, which @yogthos started, is about Lemmy libs’ love for MBFC. My criticisms of MBFC itself and of US disinformation about Syria are in other subthreads of this post.
anybody who takes mediabiasfactcheck seriously fits the bill
I think a better course would be to not take you seriously.
I certainly don’t take you seriously.
truth hurts huh
Like a tool in a media literacy toolbox?
You’re showing your own bias. It’s not the resource. It’s one that does an awful lot of legwork in checking bad sources of news, very often accurately.
So. Don’t call me a “lib,” pal.
If you ever bother looking who funds the tool it will become clear to you whose biases it promotes. It’s incredible that there are people so gullible as to genuinely believe that this is some sort of an altruistic project.
You are making the claim about its funding. Please provide your argument, rather than making oblique references to things.
I haven’t had time to watch and contextualize the long video you sent me to respond to it.
But if you have concerns about the bias of a well known and widely respected source of fact checking (not even first hand news), then please expound and cite it.
Otherwise, I have to assume you are making a bad faith argument, and cannot source your assertions, so I don’t have any need to engage with you.
I mean it’s right on their site, the fact that you can’t figure out how to find basic information on the internet says a lot about you. It’s funded in large part by ads. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/funding/
There are also plenty of criticisms of the site and the methodology that are well known. For example, The Columbia Journalism Review has described MBFC reviews as subjective assessments that “leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in”
https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php
There is an obvious inherent bias given that what’s considered centre is liberal mainstream centre in the west. That’s what’s known as anchoring bias, being to the left of what’s the current mainstream in the west doesn’t make something extreme in objective sense.
MBFC has also rated US propaganda outlets such as VoA and RFE as being “least biased”. Even wikipedia considers these sources unreliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources
Just a few examples for you there. Hopefully that’s enough expounding and citing for you to get a picture.
Your condescending tone certainly makes you an unattractive conversation partner.
They are funded by advertising. Do you prefer your media to be opaquely funded, or you just prefer media that comes directly from certain states?
Who cares if it’s funded by advertisements? Why is that relevant? I would rather open funding by sponsors I can see than dark money or anonymous donors.
I’ve acknowledged the criticisms for the site, and have only made the argument that it’s a useful tool to use for media literacy. It’s based on US media, and approaches things based on the political circumstances of (primarily) the US and the anglosphere.
I’ve also acknowledged that human bias and inconsistencies exist, and again encouraged its use -alongside critical thinking and media literacy to help with evaluating sources. I. This particular case it simply helped to illustrate that this “news” is just Syrian propaganda that’s being repeated by other governments that have good cause to criticize the United States.
Yes, MBFC it has a bias towards western political bias, because those are the circumstances within which the room was created. That’s a drawback, and, again, something that needs to be accounted for when using the tool.
You have done a fine job at reiterating your points. But none of it is a damning assessment of MBFC. You’ve just proven that it’s not perfect. Something I agree with.
These are flaws that need to be taken into account when using it, but it doesn’t make to tool useless.
But the fact remains that it is considered a reliable enough source to have qualified support for it on various university resource lists.
Then don’t converse with me. Simple solutions are available given that this is an entirely you problem.
Entire books have been written on how advertisement models create biases in favor of the advertisers. If you don’t understand why that’s relevant what else can I say. Also, nobody is arguing for any dark money here. That’s just a straw man you made. The argument is that the whole premise is flawed.
It’s a useful tool for reinforcing mainstream western views and promoting these biases. People use it to shut down discussion and to smear sources outside western mainstream. This is problematic in the extreme.
And that’s why it’s highly problematic in a context of the media published by US adversaries. It should not be difficult to understand why, but here we are.
Given that people keep trotting it out to promote their political biases, seems that the tool is outright harmful.
This is just appeal to authority.
I’ve been watching you for years dude, you don’t have room to talk about biases.
I’m pretty open about my biases dude, and never pretended otherwise. The point here, is that western mainstream constitutes a bias just like anything else. All you’re complaining about here is that my biases are different from yours. There’s no such thing as unbiased content. Deal with it.
I’m not complaining about anything, I’m calling out your hypocrisy.
You sure weren’t open about it in that comment I responded to.
If I claimed to not have biases while calling out other biases, that would certainly be hypocrisy. Pointing out that MFBC is biased while acknowledging my own biases is not hypocrisy. Hope that helps you.
Oh, how was I not open about it? Please cite where I try to pretend to be unbiased or mislead people regarding my position. Would love to hear about it champ.
It’s like raiaaaaain on your wedding day.
This welterweight debate bro is still waiting for his orbital teapot as well. What a bunch of silly feints. I would stop wasting my time. The post is two days old anyway.