World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Several twitter posts are also embedded.
Thanks for the rundown there. I am glad for the link to the fbi information about the president being an asset of Israel.
Why do I not already know this with the NYTimes? Did I just miss it, or are they still just covering for Israel, and by extension Epstein, and all of his co conspirators.
Are we sure the Times Editors and or owners aren't on the epstein files?
Two things to know about NYT:
First, when NYT actually asserts a physical fact, it is true or as close to true as they can ascertain: they don't like lawsuits. They have this in common with WSJ.
Second, how NYT couches any given fact and in what light they present it can be entirely disconnected from that fact's context in reality. It's easy to sue and win if they get their facts wrong, but editorialization is a different thing.
So with the NYT, it's best to note the facts, but take the presented context with a wheelbarrow of salt.
Why? I have no information on NYT editors or owners, but it is definitely the newspaper of rich, establishment New Yorkers. Epstein was a rich, establishment New Yorker himself, and so were many of his friends, including Donald Trump. The paper is literally written for the Epstein class.
So they have gone out of their way to editorialize facts about Epstein, such as running a puff piece late last year that tried to spin all the missing financial information about where Epstein got his riches into a "absolutely not blackmail, only theft, nothing to see here, move along" piece. (archive link) If you read that with the understanding that blackmail has always been a front and center suspicion with Epstein, not just financially but in regard to his use of technology to record what went on at his properties as well as his supposed intelligence links, you'll see what I'm talking about. How is that missing? Well, that's NYT.
So don't wait for NYT to piss off their core subscriber base. If it's going to frighten them, expect it to be soft-pedaled and both-sides, maybe written in a way that is protective of them like the above-linked article, or just not appear prominently at all.
I used to read them every day, for a couple of decades on and off, half the time. They were better before. I quit forever in 2018 because of Israel, it sounds petty, I knew they were biased, but I've always been a commenter on articles back when they all had their own comments. I made some mild criticisms of Israel that were true, really held back, I only implied they were nazis, ghettos, etc.
Anyway, when I went back to check, none of them went through. I tried a bunch of other ones, none of the Israel ones went through. Meaning they were classifying mild criticisms of forcing others into ghettos and levying collective punishments against them from a position of absolute military superiority as anti salmonish or whatever nonsense they call it.
Idk why but it pissed me off a lot. I figured I'd get over it and resubscribe, but I've just gotten angrier. Someone got me a guest subscription this year, and I can hardly read it, can't stomach a single editorial or opinion piece, which I used to read all of them, I don't respect their opinions.
But they are less brave. They didn't break a single story, before, despite being the textbook case of fairness bias and covering for Israel and other things, they still broke a lot of stories. They ran a series of articles about fracking poisoning swaths of land while these oil companies lied about it and paid off their politicians, even as other parts of the paper might run oil industry fluff pieces, and full page ads from oil companies lying. They broke warrantless wiretapping, covered snowden, they had some courage.
That courage is all but spent now. I seriously think this Israel thing has broken their brains, broken their will, gave them an identity crisis, their identification with the jewish identity that Israel has crafted, of them under attack, the victims, fighting for survival against shadowy forces has triumphed their identity as the fourth estate. They are standing side by side with those that forced 5 million people into ghettos in the middle east, convinced they are the victims, put upon, attacked on all sides. They have to stick together, or else, let me check notes, george soros? That doesn't sound right, well too late that's what they are going with. Dumb as it sounds when you say it out loud.
Israel gave them an identity crisis and they identify with the forces of illiberality now, and are too cravenly afraid of the government, and to their credit it should be mentioned since it's clear the democrats won't stop them and the republicans will win and put a fix in, resistance is futile. But it's only futile because of the NYTimes and their ilk making sure doomed to fail candidates run as opposition to the democratic party, in status quo campaigns, so that argument doesn't hold water very far if your can see past your hand. This is all their fault in a way, we knew what the republicans were, and we knew what the israelis were. We knew that the repulicans were adopting the tactic of the israelis to bring home here, to ghettoize our own cities, and they still refused to embark on popular reform that would stop them. They did all they could to prevent it.
So long winded and all, but I am too angry at them to even read them much, which is no big loss because it's garbage now, I've seen more scoops linked from guardian pieces than on the times this year and last.
No man, you just wrote a good read. I totally agree with every word, and you're 100% right about the Israel side of things and coming in with full support for the controlled opposition. I have not and will not forgive them for bothsidesing the current insanity -- and just as recently as November 21 David Brooks was writing about how the Epstein files are not important and there's nothing to see there, etc. There's not a word you wrote that I'd take fault with: I've seen the same myself.
But funny enough, what you went through with NYT, I went through with WaPo, even down to the selective censoring of comments. The same building of rage, thinking I was being petty and then realizing, no, there really is shady, very selective shit going on, for example juxtaposing established fact next to unrelated commentary to make it seem as if the two are actually together. Like when the sabotage of cables and such started in the North Sea and WaPo would directly intersperse the established facts of the incident with mentions of various Ukrainians but without actually linking them, allowing the skimming eye to do that for the reader who would then come away thinking there was proof Ukrainians were involved. Literally yellow journalism 101. It almost caught me too, except there was enough inner what??? to make me read it a second time, and much more carefully, and that's when I saw it for myself -- but imagine all who didn't, and still don't. I'm STILL pissed about that, to be honest.
Then Bezos hiring that shady fuck Will Lewis from the Murdoch rag News of the World was just the last straw: I quit my subscription January 1, 2024, the day before he started at WaPo, because I knew where it was going. Ever since then I've watched from afar as yep, it did indeed go there, and Will Lewis completely failed to turn things around even as he brought his own scandals over here with him. Ever since then it's been a subscriber exodus, especially after he broke the WaPo editorial tradition of coming in for support of a candidate so as to not allow them to offer it to Kamala, but I was long gone by then.
Latest WaPo news is that a few days ago, after Bezos laid off 300+ staffers, including all the sportwriters (which is a thing in itself, if you've ever read WaPo), Will Lewis quit.
I'd go back, but there's nothing left to go back to but AP wire stories and AI comment summaries, plus fuck Bezos, so no.
But yeah. Both of them. It's sad to see what they've become. I've kept one US subscription for now, NYT, but these days I give money to the Graun.
Have a colleague who's convinced the zionists are in control of everything (including trump), this should drive him nuts. TY!