I see your post and also the tags and reblog from @afrenomes:
#like by all means it’s good to find multiple varied sources that say this#but please don’t solely rely on mbfc to determine whether or not you take an article seriously#i have articles saved about how there’s no famine in gaza but that’s from earlier this year#and so doesn’t include the famine statement from august#palestine#israel#also when you actually look through the report mbfc says that commentary hasn’t failed a single fact check in 5 years#it’s just that mbfc thinks that commentary misrepresents certain health and science issues#as in they get the facts right i guess but their interpretations and opinions maybe can be way off? idk#but anyways there’s nothing negative about how they report on i-p if you care about what mbfc says
I figured it was easier to just reply to you both here. Also, apologies if I come off as curt or terse. Not my intent. I'm just busy today, but wanted to respond a bit while I had time. Just want to correct a few misinterpretations here:
I am NOT rejecting this source out of hand.
I am not rejecting this source.
I am not rejecting this source or discounting it for its right-leaning bias. All media--news or otherwise--has unavoidable bias.
I studied politics in college and, while I am a very leftist person, I am very aware that right-leaning reporting on Israel, foreign policy, and military information tends to be more accurate than left-leaning publications (which are more accurate than right-leaning publications on subjects such as science, domestic policy, domestic economic, and social issues).
I never doubted that the UN reported the numbers here.
I don't have any specific reason to doubt the IDF's numbers. However, I do think that third-party (non-Hamas, non-Palestinian) numbers are necessary to attain a complete and accurate picture here. Not because the IDF is fundamentally untrustworthy in general. I just believe that, for any conflict (military, domestic, economic, social, etc.), there should always be independently assessed numbers in order to avoid bias where possible.
I know that the previous point is idealistic and not always possible in this particular conflict. But that is also why we must interrogate all sources and, if there are no perfectly reliable numbers, we must do our best to affirm the numbers we do have to the best of our ability.
My issue with the source isn't its numbers or basic suppositions.
My issue is its status as "mostly factual," actually. I have a VERY high standard for factual reporting and credibility ratings in my news sources.
My mother was a journalist and she raised me to be extremely interrogative about my sources and how I assess information. My schooling in politics, global culture, and diversity reinforced the importance of this.
I think it's WONDERFUL that you looked into the MBFC rating w/r/t health and science. That is important to understanding why the "mostly factual" rating was given. I think that, if and when you share this article, that is something you should say pre-emptively about this source.
I'm not dismissing this as A POSSIBLE SOURCE on the issues reported here. I am saying that, because they do have a history of "mostly factual" and a severe, rather than slight, right lean, it is important to ALSO have additional sources from other news sources that are more centrist or left-leaning in order to balance and assess the claims made here. Not because right-leaning reporting is inherently more problematic than left-leaning reporting (both camps have reporting strengths and weaknesses), but because true things should be verifiably true no matter the lean of a source.
In general, I try very hard to only promote sources that are rated High or Very High by MBFC. This is not always possible, especially due to the (a) extreme views at play by most major news publications on the topic of I/P and (b) the fact that all credible sources on the conflict published within MENA are based in Israel. I have looked extensively for highly rated Arab, Palestinian, and MENA-based news publications. At last check, they did not exist, due primarily to a lack of free press/speech and government oversight of publications. So, especially for MENA-based publications but also for ALL publications regardless of national origin, if a source can only merit a "Mostly Factual" rating, then it must BALANCE that drop by having a clean fact-checking record AND a minimal bias toward EITHER side of the political spectrum. At least to meet my standards of what articles I would share as a standalone article.
If, as is the case in this article, the aformentioned standards are not met, I would not share this article UNLESS I found similar articles from either publications with higher factual reporting and credibility ratings OR similar ratings but that were left-leaning.
This is not about my personal feelings on the subject.
My reasons for these standards is because I believe the point of these articles is to spread truth and to expose issues those who may not be disposed to believe these truths. This article may affirm things we know to be true, but that doesn't matter if the people we show it to can dismiss the source for its bias or credibility.
I don't believe that MBFC is beyond reproach, but I believe it is a useful tool for helping guide discussions on this matter and other matters concerning factuality. It is also the only free resource I know of that fact checks so thoroughly. You can also look at the fact-checking arms of AP, NYT, Reuters, etc. AP and NYT are obviously problematic, because their fact-checking arm is more reliable than their actual reporting. Same goes for similar publications with fact-checking arms. Reuters is great, but the breadth of the subjects on which it reports makes it impossible for the news outlet to keep up with the flood of dubious information coming out of MENA regarding this conflict.
My go-to source in MENA is YNET, an internationally rated fact checking source. Publications with a wider area of focus but that are the top of my list of reliable sources are Reuters and i24.
Within Israel, YNET is my most favored source. My second-choice source is Haaretz. Third is Times of Israel. Again, I am aware of the flaws of Times of Israel, but those are the three MOST reliable sources in all of MENA, so it's not like I have other options.
You are correct that sources such as Amnesty International and various UN agencies are subject to bias and inaccuracy that may not be reflected in their MBFC ratings. This does not make those sources worthless.
MBFC takes a long time to validate claims and ratings of the publications and journalists it evaluates. Accuracy ratings may lag as a result of this.
When dealing with a highly credible source with high accuracy ratings that is actively sharing incorrect or misleading information, the answer isn't to dismiss the source. It's to interrogate and verify the information within the source/article. People shouldn't trust sources because MBFC says they're good. They should trust sources because the source offers good data. If the data in the article is good and accurate, it should be verifiable and the methodology of its reportage and assessment should be transparent.
Journalistic protocol is that a source is reliable and defensibly true if the information can be verified by three independent sources.
Bad publications do not bother to find three sources. OK publications may stop at two. Terrible publications may not check any but the original source.
With the amount of misinformation being spread during this war, it is both possible and probable that publications with otherwise excellent standards of reportage are able to independently verify false information from three sources as true.
This is not a failure of the source but a failure of the existing protocols of reportage to account for high levels of misinformation. In such cases, it is preferable to find a highly credible/factual source that focuses specifically on the issues being reported on, because they have better ways to check the accuracy of information on their area of focus than a more general publication such as the NYT or BBC.
There is no perfect source. There is no one article that you can read and share and know is beyond reproach.
The point of media literacy isn't to stop having to interrogate sources once you find one that is good enough.
The point of media literacy is to find sources that are reliable, credible, and minimally biased enough that you can both share them confidently AND back up the claims with confidence when someone challenges you on the data or content it reports.
News media isn't an answer. It is a resource that we must all use and understand in order to help us form opinions of our own.
For all these reasons, I am not saying that we must dismiss the article OR blindly trust MBFC. I am saying that I do not have ENOUGH confidence in the reportage standards of Commentary Magazine to share its article or defend its numbers WITHOUT the addition of further research. And I think it is perfectly unproblematic to demand accompanying information when dealing with such a source and such a topic.
The article is a good jumping off point. The information provided by your additional reblogs are also valuable additions. We must assume, especially in this conflict, that all information shared by the news will be challenged extensively by those who disagree. Rather than dig our heels in and assert our superior understanding of the issue, we must anticipate this and develop the tools necessary to answer these challenges.
origamiaround
baratheonpilled
discoholicmusic
janainaart
tangentwithtanner
areudirty
