politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Not explaining how this is a hallmark of authoritarian rule, but quoting the bullshit reasons the regime pretends to believe in is still a failing of the duty of the press.
There is essentially no legitimate mainstream media anymore. They've all been acquired by some late stage cap oligarch, so anything they print will be filtered through the lens of disseminating propaganda and manufacturing content on their behalf.
Edit: I'm in no way advocating that "alternative" news is less bias or more trustworthy. The point is that you can't inherently trust ANY media by brand name recognition, the same way that you can no longer trust that brand name equals quality in general; that only applied when there was actual competition instead of a handful of corporations owning the majority of every industry, all sharing the same board of directors, reporting to the same few hundred oligarchs.
Ap news is solid. Their reporting is consistently high quality. With breaking news they dont try and report all the unverified information sticking close to what is actually known.
You are never going to get news that isnt filtered through someone's lens. Alternative news is 1000x worse when it comes to disseminating propaganda.
AP and Reuters set industry standards. They're the ones to look at before any of the others.
They did not include which orgs complied with the regime, or draw parallels to the "ministry of truth" authoritarian precedent that this action represents. Look at what they choose to omit.
I never said alternative media is more trustworthy or less bias.
From the article in the OP:
They didn't? It sure seems like they did to me.
APnews isnt there to list orgs that comply or draw parallels. Theyre a news site they tell you what's happening you read that and if you want to go further you can.There are plenty of other sites that will do that.
It's called due diligence, journalistic integrity, and reporting the facts.
"They're a news site." isn't an excuse for not covering all the facts of the story, in fact, that's the exact reason they're being held with scrutiny. It is their job to provide as much information as possible. That's quite literally what news reporting is for.
I want to insult you because tbh your comment is really fucking dumb.
My comment that's older than their shows that they did name the one org that complied. I agree, the comment above is stupid, but the AP did do what you want. The person above just lied (through ignorance or on purpose) and said they didn't.
Yeah, I actually already knew that, I wasn't the OP for this comment chain, I just get annoyed when people say stupid shit.
Due diligence is checking your facts and sources are correct. Journalistic integrity is reporting on the truth even when its disadvantageous. None of those are broken by AP. They covered all the facts of the story.
If they didn't list all of the orgs that complied (which they did anyway), they would not have been covering all of the facts of the story.
If you can't wrap your head around that simple concept, you are someone that isn't worth engaging with.
I mean, NPR?
Have you ever seen NPR or PBS refer to the thousands of Palestinian civilians kidnapped and indefinitely detained, without charges or trial, as "hostages"? Because I haven't. They are always "prisoners".