- 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.
Second most moral army in West Asia!
Look, this article runs every few months from the Syrian regime. To be blunt, the trucks bring in Wheat and probably arms or something else they shouldn’t. The SDF (formerly called the YPJ and YPG) runs oil refineries and sells the oil as a means of finding themselves. The US… Well, ‘Coalition’ supplies them with the refineries.
Why all these steps? Turkyie hates the YPJ/YPG but Turkyie is part of the Coalition against ISIL. The ‘SDF’ gets bombed by Turkyie but the SDF also runs the largest ISIL prison in the region. So Turkyie and Syria don’t team up against the SDF, the SDF doesn’t get full US support, and resupply trucks have to ‘sneak’.
Everyone in the region has stakes in not letting them break out. Iraq doesn’t want it, Syria doesn’t want it, the US and Coalition don’t want it but, outside of the US, no one can publicly back the SDF and save face with their regional counterparts. The US makes sure the SDF has food and funds, everyone gets to keep the ISIL and Refugee camps ‘running’ and no one has to support the SDF and lose face with their local parties.
I’d call it shades of gray but it’s more like shades of blood…
Too many shades of grey, give it to me black and white, doc. Who should I cheer for?
There have been many videos posted before that clearly show oil-carrying trucks
SDF has extraction, not refining. Crude has to be shipped out.
Imagine thinking the existence of oil tankers in the middle east is somehow evidence of a grand conspiracy.
Ahh, it’s only crude oil? That makes it all legitimate then /s
It’s not a grand conspiracy. It’s an occupation and illegitimate military intervention. The US has a long track record of doing it, and your people have a long history of supporting it :)
I’m not saying it’s legitimate or illegitimate and, yeah, there are US assets (likely other countries too but they ‘need’ more discretion) in Syria. Not just ‘force projection’ but troops on ground, patrolling with the SDF.
So, yeah, you’re not wrong but US assets are supporting SDF assets who are keeping detained ISIL under lock and key and, when they get uppity, hellfire missile.
But, at the end of the day, The Syrian Government could simply roll out into the country and take back the oil fields from the Kurds that everyone in the region loves to oppress and ship it out themselves. I’m against Iraqi oppression of the Kurds. I’m against Turkish oppression of the Kurds. Guess what? I’m also against Syrian oppression of the Kurds. If that makes me a US (and Coalition by proxy) shill then by all means, think me a shill. The Kurds have held their lands since the beginning of written history but you think that the Syrian Dictatorships of the last fifty years have more right to that land then go off, friend.
who are keeping detained ISIL under lock and key
Yeah I am not going to excuse a US occupation with ISIS as pretext when it was the US that sponsored ISIS’ creation.
I’m completely lost about your last paragraph. It sounds like you’re assuming I have some stances that I do not. I support Kurdish autonomy and independence. Tying that into letting more people in non-US-occupied regions fight for a drop of heating or cooking oil is ridiculous. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
Turkyie doesn’t like the Kurds, maybe for a good reason in their eyes. Syria doesn’t like the Kurds and again they probably think that’s a good idea too. Iraq gives them autonomy but that’s who knows what will happen if Sadr continues to expand Iranian influence.
The US has on multiple occasions used the Kurds and left them out to dry, so they’re not some blameless paragon, but they didn’t at Al Sina’a and they continue to keep food shipments moving in despite Russian aggression raising the price of wheat and Syrian shelling the White Helmets.
There’s no angels but at least the US isn’t bombing whole towns for the crime of being “rebel held”. They keep their collateral down to whomever might be standing near their targets…
Or, in the case of their Task Force 9, merely precision bomb their civilian targets.
I think we can both agree that US actions in the region have been abhorrent. Though, the Coalition at least attempts to maintain an air of legitimacy (and aid funding) and the Kurds by and large don’t have many other friends.
maybe for a good reason
There’s literally no good reason
The US coalition’s bombings has been far more cruel than even the Syrian regime and ISIS. Just compare the size of the destruction, the number of destroyed buildings between the liberation of Raqqa vs the battle of Aleppo. Despite Aleppo being a much bigger city, and the fight being far more fierce, Raqqa had far more destruction and was raised to the ground.
I agree with you that the SDF does not have many friends, and I support them in milking as much US aid as they can. But selling off the oil when most Syrians are struggling for a drop of oil is cruel, and we should not accept this.
There is absolutely no difference between what US is doing in Syria and what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Yet, all of a sudden it’s a shades of gray.
There’s absolutely no difference?
Are you… are you serious?
Well I guess there’s a bit of a difference. Russia was invited by LPR and DPR to help stop the ethnic cleansing. Nobody invited US into Syria last I checked.
Woof.
This would’ve been more believable if they left off the wheat. Oil I can imagine, but no fucking way are US troops stealing wheat of all things.
Do they think there is a mill at their base? What the fuck would they use it for? It has negative value.
If I go digging, am I going to find out that this is an anti-Kurdish hit piece trying to manufacture consent so Assad can use chemical weapons on Rojava?
Why not evaluate the information for what it is rather than checking if it belongs to your preferred camp of propaganda or not?
Information has been evaluated.
This is an article attempting to frame Kurdish settlements in Rojava, whose existence is only possible because US forces in the area stop the Turks and Assad from bombing them, as the US stealing fuel and food. The Kurds are the ones pumping this oil and growing the wheat. The US isn’t robbing Syrians at gunpoint for their wheat. It’s only considered theft because the people eating and using the fuel are ethnically undesirable.
You’re still too busy analyzing the motives or agenda of the author instead of evaluating the information. Of-fucking-course the Syrian state TV is going to have an agenda that… Surprise: agrees with state policy. This is not the revelation you think it is.
Guess what? Every source has a bias or agenda. For many it is money related.
Now, the US is indeed stealing. There have been several videos posted before, and local witnesses arresting to it. This has nothing to do with whatever you think it is framing. This is actually happening.
The US isn’t robbing Syrians at gunpoint
What the hell do you call installing your literal military and building 14 bases (more US bases per square mile of any similarly-sized region in the world), and has initiated multiple attacks on Syria since?
It’s only considered theft because the people eating and using the fuel are ethnically undesirable.
Maybe to you. To me, it is considered theft because the oil fields which were once keeping all Syrians warm, cooking, and supplying them with electric power is now being given to an occupying military while most Syrians are struggling for a drop of heating or cooking oil, many dying of the winter cold.
What “information”?
For starters: “US troops loot Syrian oil and wheat continuously”
This is an accusation. It doesn’t become information until it is substantiated with some evidence and corroborated by multiple sources.
So far, none of these articles actually show any US forces anywhere.
There’s no way you don’t believe the US is in Syria? They do not make it a secret. I’m happy to provide you with a wealth of instances where the US admits this.
Just like everything on SANA, yes.
Unfortunately, there’s basically four flavors of propaganda in the region and that’s it.
Didn’t the Assad chemical weapons turn out to be another Kuwait Propaganda moment lmao (some other group was actually responsible)
-
Investigations have found that the Assad regime has carried out the majority of the over 336 confirmed chemical weapons attacks in Syria, with 98% of the total attacks attributed to the regime.[1]
-
The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) has documented 222 chemical weapons attacks in Syria as of November 2023, with 217 of these carried out by Syrian regime forces. These attacks have killed 1,514 individuals, including 1,413 civilians.[2]
-
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed five separate instances of the Assad regime using chemical weapons, including the April 2018 attack in Douma that killed 43 people.[3]
-
Human Rights Watch has documented the Syrian government’s “widespread and systematic use of chemical weapons” since at least 2013, despite the government’s pledges to cooperate with OPCW and UN inspectors.[4]
-
The 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, which killed hundreds, was the deadliest use of chemical weapons since the Iran-Iraq War.[5]
In summary, the overwhelming evidence from multiple independent investigations and organizations confirms that the Assad regime in Syria has repeatedly and systematically used chemical weapons against civilians during the civil war, in clear violation of international law.
Citations: [1] Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war [2] the Syrian Regime Still Possesses a Chemical Weapon Arsenal, With … https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/day-remembrance-all-victims-chemical-warfare-syrian-regime-still-possesses-chemical-weapon-arsenal-serious-concerns-over-cws-potentially-being-used-again-syria-enar [3] OPCW Confirms More Syrian Chemical Weapons Use https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-03/news/opcw-confirms-more-syrian-chemical-weapons-use [4] Death by Chemicals - Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/05/01/death-chemicals/syrian-governments-widespread-and-systematic-use-chemical-weapons [5] Ghouta chemical attack - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
Oct. 2023:
- Seymour Hersh: When the Intelligence Is Inconvenient
- The Grayzone: UK intelligence spun 2013 Syria chemical attack, leaked docs show
Mar. 2023: Aaron Mate at UN: OPCW cover-up denies justice to Douma victimsAaron Maté, Kit Klarenberg, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and others have been reporting on this extensively for years: #douma, #white-helmets, #opcw
Human Rights Watch’s main purpose is to manufacture consent for US regime change operations.
- Monthly Review: How Credible Is Human Rights Watch on Cuba?
Human Rights Watch, however, is not funded by the US government. Yet it gets most of its funds from a variety of US foundations, in turn funded by many of the biggest US corporations. These wealthy, private foundations often tie their contributions to particular projects. So for example HRW’s Middle East reports often rely on and acknowledge grants from pro-Israel foundations. Other groups ask for a focus on women’s rights or HIV/AIDS issues. More than 90% of HRW’s US$100 million budget in 2009 was “restricted” in this way. In other words, HRW offers a privatized, US-based selection of rights issues catering to the wealthy. - Behind the Syrian Network for Human Rights [SNHR]: How an opposition front group became Western media’s go-to monitor
- NATO-backed network of Syria dirty war propagandists identified
- Citations Needed: The Human Rights Concern Troll Industrial Complex
-
“Founded in 2005, La Nueva Televisora del Sur (teleSUR, English: The New Television Station of the South) is a multi-state funded, pan–Latin American terrestrial and satellite television network sponsored by the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia that is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela. TeleSUR has been accused of being a propaganda tool for Hugo Chavez and his successors.”
It’s not deemed to be a credible source given its direct governmental control and routine lack of transparency in its sources, if it provides any sources whatsoever.
There is also a long list of provably false reporting from this website.
I’m not saying that these kinds of actions don’t take place, just that this source is not reliable and I would guess that systemic theft from an incredibly scrutinized entity in a hostile country would be subject to a little bit more widespread reporting and corroborating evidence.
Yeah, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for BBC to cover Western atrocities in the developing world, let alone any US outlet (or rather frame it as justified in response to retaliatory attacks to violence initiated by US intervention in the first place). The issue with over relying on sites like MBFC is that they inherently have a western bias. The US exploiting Syria for its oil isn’t even news at this point, this has been ongoing since 2011.
Can you provide any somewhat reliable evidence to support your claims about the USA stealing oil?
I’m just trying to understand the mechanics and the utility of it. The US military has exceptional logistics, a vast oil reserve, and extraordinary oil production and refining industries. This doesn’t even mention any of its allies in the region where it can base logistical support.
Not to mention what others have pointed out: that there likely aren’t very many, if any, US military installations in the world capably of refining crude oil or turning wheat into flour.
Again, the US exploiting Syria for oil has been occurring since 2011. BBC has a decent article on Syrians oil production post-US intervention. but have your pick.
https://www.bbc.com/news/50464561
https://www.newsweek.com/syria-trump-stealing-oil-us-confirms-deal-1526589
https://www.newsweek.com/syria-first-message-biden-withdraw-troops-stop-stealing-oil-1563165
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221213-syria-regime-again-accuses-us-of-stealing-its-oil/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN24Y0MI/
https://orinocotribune.com/us-steals-more-than-80-of-syrias-daily-oil-production/
https://english.news.cn/20220817/437cb1bd33ea40999cda96c521f31d21/c.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-military-still-stealing-oil-syria/5790752
Those are all news sources that say Syria has accused the USA of stealing oil, or Trump saying it wouldn’t be a bad idea.
I could not find any sources (aside from the last two, of which I similarly question the validity and reliability) that corroborate the US military stealing oil directly from any Syrian entity, as the original source asserts.
So, no, it’s not “common knowledge” that this happens. It’s an assertion made by a geopolitical rival in the context of a very messy and complex conflict, and I dispute it. You have yet to provide any actual information supporting the claim, as does the Syrian government.
Saying things over and over again does not eventually make them true.
No, your right. Syrian oil production plummeting after US occupation is actually just a coincidence. We also 100 percent invaded Iraq for WMDs. You’re not going to find BBC, Reuters, or the Washington Post outright stating the disposition of US interventionism.
There’s an entire fucking civil war going on in Syria. Of course oil production is going to fall.
The invasion of Iraq is not a good comparison for the conflict in Syria. The geopolitical situation is different between 2003 and now. The USA exports significant amount of oil now. It imported it then.
Listen, the United States military has done plenty of terrible shit. It’s still happening, and it’s going to happen. But this suggestion that it’s just going out and hijacking tankers of crude oil and driving them to some random forward operating post and then refining it there or sending it to the black market somehow is just… rather far fetched.
Syrian oil production plummeted after ISIL took over most of the country during the civil war.
The first link to the BBC article shows production starting to drop in 2010-2011. The US didn’t put boots on the ground in Syria until 2015, at which point production was nearly as low as it gets in that chart.
Here it is from the horse’s mouth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsFOS5Odno&t=903s
I don’t have time to watch an hour and a half video right now.
Will you please quote the words of the source that you are offering, in addition to the context of their words?
This is such a weird assertion to make, I just don’t understand the mission of the people who are arguing with me about media literacy and downvoting my calls for critical thinking about the media they consume.
I specifically linked to the 5 relevant minutes of the video where she explains in plain english why US is occupying Syria and stealing the resources.
Which I have to contextualize into our argument here, and research who this speaker is, and what the actual context of her comment is.
Which is a lot of work for somebody trying to engage in a good faith, honestly. You’re making assertions, do the work to prove them and it makes your argument more convincing and effective.
If you have the proof of your claims about this media literacy tool, then make and support your arguments clearly. You’re being lazy and it makes me not want to believe you, even though I honestly have a lot of interest in consuming media ethically and critically.
Edit: mobile grammar fixes.
Yeah, you have to learn about the subject you’re forming opinions on instead of talking out of your ass. Imagine that!
They wont because they are a worthless canadian tankie.
you sound upset kiddo
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=MFsFOS5Odno&t=903s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Plus the actual cost of transport and guarding that transport doesn’t seem like the profit would actually be worth the risk. It mostly seems like why would we bother, not enough reward for the risk.
removed by mod
They often state that western sources use less biased language and more often provide evidence, but always acknowledge when they are a part of a government.
Which, by the way, was the gist of my critique of the source that I highlighted in my OP. This news agency is literally funded by governments that are opposed to the US in Syria, and are quoting another Syrian government owned source.
I don’t know what an “Anglo nationalist” even is.
removed by mod
Please avoid citing MBFC as a valid source.
Dave Van Zandt is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence-based reporting. Since High School (a long time ago), Dave has been interested in politics and noticed as a kid the same newspaper report in two different papers was very different in their tone. This curiosity led him to pursue a Communications Degree in college; however, like most 20-year olds he didn’t know what he wanted and changed to a Physiology major midstream. Dave has worked in the healthcare industry (Occupational Rehabilitation) since graduating from college but never lost the desire to learn more about bias and its impacts.
The combination of being fascinated by politics, a keen eye to spot bias before he even knew what it was called, and an education/career in science gave Dave the tools required for understanding Media Bias and its implications. This led to a 20-year journey where Dave would read anything and everything he could find on media bias and linguistics. He also employed the scientific method to develop a methodology to support his assessments.
If you’re going to discredit a source, please try to do the legwork of actually discrediting it. A guy with a Bachelors in Physiology and being “fascinated with politics since high school (a long time ago)” cannot be considered a reliable source, nevermind one who claims to follow the “scientific method” which he, presumably, learned while studying to become an occupational therapist or through his 20-year journey of reading political news.
If you have photos of this man, any record of interviews with him, records that support his credibility/the incorporation of his company, records of his job in occupational rehabilitation, details about his team, or anything else, please feel free to share them. Please do not confuse him with Dave E. Van Zandt (Princeton BA Sociology, Yale JD, London School of Economics PhD, ex-managing editor of the Yale Law Journal, ex-Dean of Northeastern’s School of Law, ex-President of The New School).
I don’t understand. Unless you have a degree in journalism or something similar you’re not allowed to be an expert on media outlets? How many professors of practice at universities don’t have a degree related to what they’re teaching?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m super put off by this notion that he had a “super keen eye“ and natural aptitude for spotting “bias.” I also object to the way that people talk about bias, but that’s another discussion. The point is yeah there’s a little bit of bullshit in there, but his background does not discredit the endeavor.
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.
MBFC is a good enough source for routine information, and its system is accurate enough to give a general idea of who finances, who writes, and whether the articles are sourced according to journalistic standards. It’s a good tool to help with critical evaluation of media sources. But you’re right: it’s not flawless.
Your attack on the founder is an ad hominem attack, and I don’t think it’s relevant. Are you suggesting that people can only learn things through a university education?
Besides, it’s often cited by university sources and experts as being a decent enough indicator of reliability and bias, if not necessarily held up to standards of something like a peer review.
It’s a tool to be used in conjunction with critical thought and evaluation of the source itself, and for that I think it’s rather accurate and useful.
Thing is, even if he is good at media criticism, there’s no stakes for him. Nobody knows who he is, what he looks like, he has nothing on the line, and his credibility in his primary occupation cannot be harmed if he is wrong.
Nevermind that he lacks the credentials nor any legitimate scientific expertise, and yet claims that his Bachelor’s in Physiology was sufficiently advanced to teach him everything he needs to know about the scientific process.
The dataset is seen in academia as being accurate enough to train machine learning models for or to make aggregate claims on. Machine learning models are not the bastions of truth, nor are their datasets.
Machine learning has nothing to do with this. I am referring to academics who study journalism, communication, political science, or sociology.
And it’s doesn’t really matter who he is at this point, the product he created works well and continues to be a reliable source to interrogate media sources.
I am happy that a person is able to create such a useful product, maintain it and continue to prove reliability in the product, and maintain anonymity. I certainly would want to remain anonymous if I was creating something that actively worked to check people’s information bias.
But it’s an irrelevant discussion: who he is doesn’t really matter when evaluating the work of the site itself.
“[MBFC’s] subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.” - Columbia Journalism Review
“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.” - PolitiFact journalists
MBFC is used when analyzing a large swathe of data because they have ratings for basically every news outlet. There, if a quarter or a third of the data is wrong, you can still generate enough signal to separate from noise.
It absolutely matters who is running a site because there’s an inherent accountability for journalism. There’s a reason you don’t see NYT articles from “Anonymous Ostrich.”
I accept your point about why it matters who runs the site. I would just argue that in this case, it’s not as relevant because the goal seems to legitimately be information transparency, which is consistently delivered across its work. Its findings are at least generally reproducible. But no it’s not scientific. I believe I’ve stated that already, however it’s a good indication of reliability of a source.
Yes, human bias creeps in, hence my point of using it alongside general media literacy and critical thinking when evaluating media.
It aggregates and analyzes a ton of sources, and gives generally accurate information about how they are funded, where they are based, and how well the cite original sources. These are all things that can be corroborated by a somewhat systematic reading of the sources themselves.
An LLM also “aggregates and analyzes a ton of sources, and gives generally accurate information about how they are funded, where they are based, and how well the cite original sources.”
That doesn’t make an LLM a useful source.
Thing is, even if he is good at media criticism, there’s no stakes for him. Nobody knows who he is, what he looks like, he has nothing on the line, and his credibility in his primary occupation cannot be harmed if he is wrong.
This reads like an argument against open source projects in general lol
You can trivially verify that an open-source project works. Good luck verifying a subjective rating.
If you’re going to discredit a source, please try to do the legwork of actually discrediting it.
You have not done any “legwork” to discredit MBFC. Your personal opinion is that the owner/author doesn’t have appropriate credentials/experience, but you haven’t actually demonstrated that he is not credible.
A person without credentials, without experience, and without any evidence to prove that their claimed credentials or experience are legitimate… Is a credible source?
Can you find any evidence, any at all that the person actually has the credentials that they themselves claim? This is trivial to do for pretty much any modern journalist, but I’ve been able to find zero information on him.
@zephyreks @NaibofTabr “In order to make a claim about media events you need journalistic credentials.”
Holy shit get the fucking boot out of your mouth you’re making feet fetishists look like upstanding members of society
@zephyreks @NaibofTabr I know I say this immediately after having posted feet porn but my point is still valid I swear
Nope, you are making the claim that the information presented on MBFC is not credible, it is up to you to substantiate that claim. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Your claim is that… Credibility exists unless disproven? Consider that for a minute.
Nope, my claim is that you haven’t substantiated your claim with anything more than your own personal opinion. And look at that, my claim is supported by all of your comments continuously failing to present anything more than your personal opinion. QED.
Get some sources. Or get quiet.
“[MBFC’s] subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.” - Columbia Journalism Review
“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.” - PolitiFact journalists
Journalists seem to agree with me, which you’d know if you actually read “all of my comments.” This isn’t the first time I’ve posted these quotes in this thread.
So tired of seeing this.
We need less-censored news forums.
LMFAO libs and their mediabiasfactcheck 🤡
Who you calling a “lib?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have a deep and lasting dislike of authoritarianism, no matter the political orientation?
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.
As I’ve said before, Media Bias/Fact Check is a joke.
That’s the same argument that the (presumably) other poster is making.
The founder is relatively anonymous. Why does that impact the demonstrable work his creation does?
Because his work and his creation is garbage: https://lemmy.ml/comment/9599423
If I’m being honest, I don’t have time to read through all of you other, linked comment, that doesn’t at all contextualize it into this current conversation.
I will try to do that, though, and appreciate the seemingly good faith post that I didn’t see in your other comments.
removed by mod
I said I didn’t have time to give this persons argument with the time it required to engage with it in good faith.
It’s weird that you’re so opposed to open and honest communication in the context of an argument. Doesn’t speak very well about you.
removed by mod
I’ve been on quite a few military installations, lived on one, worked at two, and even those permanent bases didn’t have a refinery on-site. I supremely doubt that there’s equipment on a foreign base or forward operating base.
I’m former military, I’ve deployed twice, but none of that qualifies any statement towards the US routinely exploiting countries like Syria for their natural resources.
I am not making that point.
The other poster is making the point that they did not observe any ability, at large military installations or small, to refine or store oil or unprocessed wheat.
Did you during your service?
Edit: changed “he” to “they”
So this article is thin on details and lacking any mention of historical or political context. The only cited sources it has are “witnesses” (unidentified). It’s pretty clearly designed to give the reader a simple impression lacking in nuance or understanding. And in fact, it is a copy of propaganda articles being pushed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry as described in this article by Radio Free Asia. And here is the media bias rating for RFA.
This is a propaganda piece, and it’s a poorly written one that doesn’t even attempt to back up its claims with any other sources or explain the broader context of the conflict in Syria.
Radio Free Asia US government-funded broadcaster in Asia
my propaganda source says your propaganda is propaganda
Regardless of your opinion of RFA, it’s the way this article is written that makes it propaganda. It makes a direct political attack, but it doesn’t actually substantiate any of its claims. You are expected to believe what it tells you and not ask any questions. There are no corroborating sources, no cross references, and not even names of the witnesses they claim to have.
No matter what your political point of view is, you shouldn’t believe anything presented in an article of this quality. It’s an insult to your intelligence. It’s not information, it’s just opinion.
Media Bias “Fact Checking” RFA is the funniest shit.
“Non-profit” without mentioning who founded it, and who funds it now.
There is an About link in the footer that is quite transparent about the founder, funding sources, methodology, etc.
I’m talking about RFA.
Check out the history section, they mention its founding. The current funding seems to be misidentified in this paragraph:
Radio Free Asia is a nonprofit 501©(3) organization that is owned by U.S. Agency for Global Media and funded through donations.
That suggests private donations, but from what I can tell it’s basically just funded by the US government via US Agency for Global Media.
You’re proving my point there buddy.
RFA was created under the directorate of the CIA, and later transfered to the State Department (aka foreign policy influence). The fact that MBFC fails to mention that is huge red flag and shows their own bias.
I swear it’s MBFC’s job to not understand that. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair
This article from SANA is the same. It cites nothing except “local sources” and it’s even shorter. It’s literally a copy of the Chinese Foreign Ministry talking points described by RFA.
Please avoid citing MBFC as a valid source. See my comment above.
It looks like most outlets carrying this story are just re-reporting this one from SANA: https://sana.sy/en/?p=329527
And that seems a bit light on details. And the details it does have seem slanted, like painting the US presence as an occupation, a border crossing as an illegal settlement (I can’t even find any other references to Mahmoudiya in Syria with a quick Google), and the photos just show pictures of random tanker trucks, nothing that would indicate location, direction, contents, or operator.
My sense is that the US is supporting a rebel faction in the Syrian civil war, and the ruling faction (Bashar al-Assad’s) is trying to paint them as the bad guy, for something that may or may not be legitimate, and may or may not even be happening at all. There’s not enough evidence here to draw any conclusions.
This is a good, nuanced interpretation of this, thanks for doing the leg work and summarizing it succinctly.
painting the US presence as an occupation
what definition of occupation does not include the deployment of the US military, which proceeded to build a dozen military bases in a territory of another country, which has continuously made filings to the UN about this occupation?
The definition in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907.
painting the US presence as an occupation
🙄
like painting the US presence as an occupation
Explain to me how it is not. Do they have a UN mandate to be there? No? An invite from the sovereign government body of the land? Neither?
A territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. I’m this case, that area is under the control of the SDF.
Who funds and arms the SDF?
The US, for one. If this is supposed to be a gotcha, that makes it a puppet state at best, still not an occupation.
US literally has bases with US troops in Syria. It’s an occupying force.
The US is supporting SDF, a primarily Kurdish group. This is no secret, they have been since 2015 against ISIL (you remember, the guys that were posting videos of beheading people on YouTube).
The Kurds have lived in this area for millennia. They have just as much right to the natural resources there as the Assad government, probably more.
Which is why the Navajo Nation controls land that would have otherwise contained the Hoover Dam, if it were not for the rights that the Navajo held to the natural resources there.
Oh, wait.
The Syrian conflict is 13 years old. It’s ridiculous to expect every article to give you the whole context every time, especially since anything anyone will write about said context will be extremely biased. This conflict had massive misinformation campaigns from all sides.
Evaluate the information for what it is, not for whether it gives you a lecture on the history of the conflict.
SANA is primarily a TV channel, and the articles are usually a summary / transcript of the TV reports. They show videos routinely of the trucks that are very clearly carrying oil through Al-ya’rabiya, which is a border crossing from Syria to Iraq that the US controls.
So tired of seeing this.
We need less-censored news forums.
removed by mod
WHAT? NOT THE FOOD GUY WITH A GUN.
Oh great, we’re the space Nazis from the awful rebel moon movies. Go figure.
