Hamas overwhelmed Israel’s border in October with something like a conventional military maneuver. Now, it acts as a guerrilla force, its fighters often disguised as civilians.
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 04/19/2022)
You’re absolutely right, but not in the way you mean.
FYI, MBFC is not itself reliable. It’s the hobby of one conservative Zionist named Dave, masquerading as an authority on reliability and bias.
Hell, the very summary you quote completely glosses over the Screams without words debacle, which was poorly constructed Hasbara co-written by a former IDF official with no reporting experience and a gigantic anti-Palestinian chip on her shoulder, basedfact unreliable testimony from inherently biased sources.
There are countless other examples, but that the NYT published that gigantic pile of fateful journalistic malpractice and stand by it to this day is in itself enough to disqualify them as a reliable source when it comes to anything regarding Israel.
Likewise, that MBFC completely ignores that in their review, claiming that the NYT has not failed ANY news reporting fact checks in recent years is proof positive that MBFC can’t be trusted to judge the reliability and bias of the NYT, if any outlet at all.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.” They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.”
It’s one guy who sometimes has the help of volunteers and paid freelancers, with no transparency as to who writes and researches what and as evidenced by their thoroughly negligent
They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
That’s probably more to do with collegial courtesy/not wanting beef with Dave than all of his competitors (and NPR, whose own standards have been slipping perilously in recent decades) actually thinking that he’s great at it.
Or it could not even be that. Your implicit trust in the Hasbara along with you completely ignoring the substantive parts of my comment implies that you may have just made up their trust in Dave from whole cloth 🤷
Newsguard analysis (perfect score from a competitor):
Thank you for motivating me to research this - I learned that MBFC is actually far more reliable and trusted by the news industry and scientific community than I realized.
Here’s that analysis with true statements marked green, mostly false ones marked blue, and complete and utter nonsense marked red
A perfect score full of obvious errors isn’t worth much.
MBFC Dave is actually far more reliable and trusted propped up by the [main stream] news industry and scientific community commercial fact guessers than I realized
Fixed that for you.
Dave and his site are only slightly more reliable on matters pertaining to Israel than the spokesperson for the IDF.
This article reads like if the Bad Hasbara podcast was renamed to The Truth and hosted by Elon Levy.
In other words, typical NYT genocide cheerleading.
Weird… I don’t share that opinion at all. And I’m not sure how this is constructive discussion.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Gee, I wonder why…
You’re absolutely right, but not in the way you mean.
FYI, MBFC is not itself reliable. It’s the hobby of one conservative Zionist named Dave, masquerading as an authority on reliability and bias.
Hell, the very summary you quote completely glosses over the Screams without words debacle, which was poorly constructed Hasbara co-written by a former IDF official with no reporting experience and a gigantic anti-Palestinian chip on her shoulder, basedfact unreliable testimony from inherently biased sources.
There are countless other examples, but that the NYT published that gigantic pile of fateful journalistic malpractice and stand by it to this day is in itself enough to disqualify them as a reliable source when it comes to anything regarding Israel.
Likewise, that MBFC completely ignores that in their review, claiming that the NYT has not failed ANY news reporting fact checks in recent years is proof positive that MBFC can’t be trusted to judge the reliability and bias of the NYT, if any outlet at all.
MBFC has a team of multiple writers and researchers - hardly a one-person “hobby.” They are highly rated by other organizations like Snopes, Newsguard, NPR, Reuters Fact Chek, etc.
It’s one guy who sometimes has the help of volunteers and paid freelancers, with no transparency as to who writes and researches what and as evidenced by their thoroughly negligent
That’s probably more to do with collegial courtesy/not wanting beef with Dave than all of his competitors (and NPR, whose own standards have been slipping perilously in recent decades) actually thinking that he’s great at it.
Or it could not even be that. Your implicit trust in the Hasbara along with you completely ignoring the substantive parts of my comment implies that you may have just made up their trust in Dave from whole cloth 🤷
MBFC has been studied by independent researchers.
Cited by NPR, Reuters Fact Check.
Newsguard analysis (perfect score from a competitor):
Thank you for motivating me to research this - I learned that MBFC is actually far more reliable and trusted by the news industry and scientific community than I realized.
Here’s that analysis with true statements marked green, mostly false ones marked blue, and complete and utter nonsense marked red
A perfect score full of obvious errors isn’t worth much.
Fixed that for you.
Dave and his site are only slightly more reliable on matters pertaining to Israel than the spokesperson for the IDF.