this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
112 points (97.5% liked)

Inventing Reality

385 readers
42 users here now

When the media decides who you are rooting for.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
112
Western media finally writes article about Epstein and Israel, instantly receives Zionist smear campaign. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Let's see what the website Lemmy.world did a fundraiser for has to say about it

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I love basing all media criticism on one guys opinions.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

no it's not one person it's a system that's published the methodology and so scientific. - mbfc die hards

we use metrics that are simply based on our opinions and no we won't show our actual data - mbfc

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

given how much control over political discourse the epstein illuminati had in the files; i've been wondering if .world & piefed were their response to the lemmyverse and if they engineered lem.ee's demise because of its relatively staggering growth.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

.world describes itself as a general server. Something most people look for when registering an account

Piefed has a far superior front-end to Lemmy (and fixes the crossposting plague which Lemmy has had for years now).

I don't think it's worth blaming them for anything as much as them providing an alternative to Lemmy's longtime obvious flaws, which at this point I'm not sure are ever getting fixed. They sure are libbed up though.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Overall, we rate HonestReporting Right-Center Biased based on support for right-leaning nationalist political parties. We also rate them as Mostly Factual rather than High due to the promotion of nationalist propaganda.

Weird how places they dislike get massively lowered for that, and their own rating system says it should be disqualification

Factuality Rating Levels

0: Very High – Consistently factual, uses credible information, no failed fact checks.
0.1–1.9: High – High factual, minor sourcing issues, reasonable fact check record
2.0–4.4: Mostly Factual – Generally reliable but may have occasional fact-check failures, transparency, and sourcing issues.
4.5–6.4: Mixed – Reliability varies; multiple fact-check failures, poor sourcing, lack of transparency, one-sidedness.
6.5–8.4: **Low – Often unreliable; frequent fact-check failures and significant issues with sourcing, transparency, propaganda, conspiracies, and pseudoscience promotion.**
8.5–10: Very Low – Consistently unreliable, heavily biased, with intentional misinformation likely.
[–] decrochay@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's interesting how they rate Drop Site News as being more biased and on par factually as HonestReporting (even though dropsitenews does real investigative journalism):

Its reporting is rated Mostly Factual due to one-sided narratives shaped by its strong anti-war stance

Their criticism of Drop Site's factuality is not that they've gotten the facts wrong, but that the facts they report do not align with a pro-war narrative.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah it's wild some of the reasons they use for why they rate things how they want. Only surprised there they didn't use to rank dropsite even lower

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wait. There was a fundraiser? 😳

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yeah back in the MBFC bot era it had messages to donate to MBFC on a bot that spammed every single thread.

Didn't last very long though the user pushback was immense.