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
I've seen this site a lot now on here, and it just looks like another low tier British tabloid that pumps out misleading ragebait content for clicks. From what I saw it's like the left wing version of the Daily Mail. Why is the information hygiene on Lemmy so poor? Why can't the community have higher standards on better sources?
Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?
Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news ("Israel ''''''tests''''''' ceasefire") to fox news.
What a shit take. You're information hygiene has to be completely cooked to defend tabloids like this. This is an objectively poor source that's basically just the Daily Mail 2.0 that pumps out clickbait.
This article is reporting on the same thing, but it is so much better:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8pz5nm6r8o
Supporting shitty tabloids doesn't become okay just because they pump out headlines you agree with, the point is the quality.
Your shitty article do not say they was kidnapped . Bbc police language of anti genocide people.
https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel
I'm criticizing a shitty tabloid that runs on clickbait and lacks both credibility and objectivity, and your response is to post some guy with a shitty blog? LMAO. Just because some shmuck out there is appealing to your confirmation biases that doesn't make their articles accurate, objective, or credible. What kind of a standard is that? The BCC for all their fault actually have some level of journalistic standards. The article they posted on this is objectively better. The BCC article actually matches what other credible news sources are publishing. You can go to Reuters or AP or whatever, and see very similar articles.
They was kidnapped, it a fact. BBC is shitty and it's standard is shitty.
https://www.owenjones.news/p/bbc-staff-were-forced-to-do-pro-israel
This is the kind of unintelligent response that I expect from someone who gets their information from randos running blogs.
links to a BBC article reporting on Israel
Is it a lack of self-awareness? Denial? Or just DARVO? It's an extraordinary act of mental gymnastics in any case. Some people have really taken the plunge into this "post-truth" thing.
The BBC article is objectively better. What ironic, is that you're the one doing the mental gymnastics. I'm criticism this source on it's merits and you're going out of your way to defend it because it feeds into your confirmation bias. You liking what they post is not a mark of their quality, they're still a crappy source. One look at their about page should tell you that much.
The irony levels are through the roof, because you're doing what you claim I'm doing, and not doing what you claim you're doing:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
You're defending the crappy source. You're not looking at the merits of your source.
There's no irony. I'm not married to the BCC. I'm merely pointing out that they're a genuine news organization with journalistic standards and the crappy blog you posted is not. That's not a controversial statement. The article they produced on this story actually has information, details, and sources... you know like a good source should. The Canary article is as shitty as it gets. It literally only has 4 sentences and a clickbait headlines. Of which, only 2 sentences are actually relevant to the story, and they're both ripped off from the Irish Mirror article that they linked. This shitty article can't even be called a summary of that article, which is a legit article that has actual reporting.
The Irish Mirror article actually provides context, testimonies, primary sources, and so on. Which begs the question, why not post that article in the first place? It's clearly a much better source and a much higher quality article. Why is lemmy littered with fucking The Canary spam everywhere? Why doesn't this place have higher standards for articles and sources? That's poor information hygiene, that's what I'm criticizing... and for some reason that's what you're offended by for some reason.
I'm sorry, the "crappy blog" that is Owen Jones's dropsite? Gtfo, you obviously don't know that the hell you're talking about. I'm not going to engage with someone arguing in bad faith.
Oh my goddd!!!! Owen Jones??? How could I be how foolish and not know who that is? Silly me, of course it's Owen Jones on Substack.
Now Substack is a site that's notorious for having its userbase be mostly political grifters, but that can't possibly apply to the great and almighty Owen Jones.
But first, who the fuck is Owen Jones? You can't possibly expect people to know random schmuck grifters that you fangirl over.
Well well well, looky what we got here. It looks like I was right all along. Now explain to me again how this guy is supposed to invalidate my points about the quality of sources and journalistic standards? If anything you're proving me right here.
That’s a lot of words to say “I am a pedophile” big guy
More bad faith nonsense. You've had your chance.
Said the schmuck who's been disingenious this whole time with my extremely straightforward point. When it finally came time to address it directly, you danced around like a clown and then gave yourself a soft exit by clutching your pearls over some no name British left wing grifter. Your projections thus far have reflected your actions.
He said, convincing no-one.
I'm not trying to convince you dimwit, I'm calling you out. But the fact that you didn't get that tells me all I need to know
What you seem to call "information hygiene" most others call "bias in favor of Israel". Do you earnestly use the term "sterile street" too?
No, the only people who call information hygiene "bias in favor of Israel" are those who lack elementary levels of critical thinking. Just because you brainlessly accept shitty sources because they feed into your confirmation bias, that doesn't mean others do. The Canary is an objectively crappy source. They literally spell out in their about page that this site is meant to be activist magazine, not a genuine news source. It lacks credibility, objectivity, and basic journalistic standards. It's literally a British tabloid that run on click bait, like what are we even doing?
The article is factually correct and links to another, more popular source. What is misleading about it?
Biased, yes. So what? If you are still neutral in the face of Israeli crimes, you are complicit.
Just go read the article that's linked and look at the world of difference in the quality of reporting. If you're seriously going to try to argue that Irish Mirror article is on the same level as this one, then you're a lost cause.
What makes your take even more brain dead than it already is that you're trying to equate your poor critical thinking skills with objective source quality. Uncritically consuming shitty articles from shitty sources because they feed into your confirmation bias is NOT a marker of quality for those sources. They still lack journalistic standards, objectivity, and accuracy. If you're willingly open to consuming propaganda tier articles from a British tabloid then that you're loss, but others aren't going to stoop down to that level. You can't mask piss poor information hygiene by pretending that anybody who has it holds some morally compromising position. This sources sucks ass on its own merits.
Oh hey, it's the "capitalism is founded on the idea of workers owning their workplace" person.
Shitty article has link to non shitty source. If you critical thinking skills were as developed as you think they are, you could click on it.
I wasn't stating an opinion then, that's literally the case. You denying reality is your own problem, not mine.
A shitty article that links to a non shitty source still means that it's a shitty article from a shitty source. The non shitty article that's linked should be the one that linked because it's the one the that higher quality. The Irish Mirror actually hired people to do real journalists to do real journalism, and the authors of that article clearly did their jobs well. They're the ones who should be rewarded with the internet traffic and recognition, not a shitty activist page that lazily rips off the work of others and slaps a clickbait headline on it. I know it's a foreign concept to you, but to normal people this is called having standards.
The irony here is so thick its almost solid that it's a shame you're dumb to get it.
They was abducted. Just because you don't like the source, it doesn't mean it is a lie.