- 22 Posts
- 30 Comments
127·9 months agoReuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Reuters attribution guidelines clearly don’t allow for copying the whole article word for word. That’s not the only paragraph…
Edit: To further clarify, MEMO doesn’t list who wrote any of their own articles… I suspect it’s because they are all either anonymous with little fact checking and/or written by generative AI.
Anyone else noticing Middle East Monitor never lists author names?
Also, large portions of their articles seem to be literal copy>paste from major outlets such as Reuters.
One example:
If you want an actual answer….
Middle East Monitor is a pretty small outlet, and not every source on MBFC has an extremely detailed report. It’s a valuable tool, but I would never call it definitive.
Ad Fontes doesn’t list them at all, which isn’t really surprising given the reach and size of MEMO.
Also, from MEMO’s website, they don’t try to be unbiased.
There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today.
The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap.
Edit: Upon further reading, I can’t help but notice none of their articles have author names attached.
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
11·9 months agoCheckout Lemonade. The premium is relatively reasonable, and the yearly limit is like 100k if I remember correctly.
Older cats might be excluded.
Preexisting conditions are excluded.
Recently adopted would be fine and likely easier to insure because you don’t know their medical history.
Oh to be clear I’m not doubting the story/headline, I’m just curious about the source because I’ve never heard of them before.
There are a lot of AI generated ripoffs out there, as well as straight propaganda. I like to at least understand where my news is coming from.
What is this source?
As far is I can tell, “The War Zone” is part of The Drive (a defunct YouTube channel, now a website), owned by a company called Recurrent that also owns Popular Science and Bob Vila.
Maybe it’s credible, maybe not, but without context it’s super hard to tell.
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Wall Street Journal – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Right-Center
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
For anyone unaware, Eurasian Times is a Russian propaganda outlet banned by Wikipedia.
For anyone unaware, Eurasian Times is a Russian propaganda outlet banned by Wikipedia.
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Direct link to the actual WSJ article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-population-births-decline-womens-rights-5af9937b
Los Angeles Times – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
About MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Alternative Rating