575
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
575 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2580 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can we not use Fox News, please? They legally argued in court they are strictly entertainment and no reasonable person would believe them. In other words, they are literal propaganda.
But yeah, I hope the smug voters that sat this election out are happy...
That's a misrepresentation of what they said. I hate Fox News too, but they argued them being called Fox News doesn't make them exclusively a news company. Most of what they provide on their TV network is entertainment. Written Fox News is actually not the worst thing ever, though still conservative and far from my preference. I also think they still have an hour dedicated to news on the TV network, which is probably worse than having none because it gives cover for the rest of the garbage.
So, do you think that, in this case, the reporting is inaccurate? Or do you just wish they linked a non-Fox version of the same story?
You should default to assuming anything Fox says is untrue without a second source to verify. Because legally they can just say whatever they want and aren't beholden to any type of journalistic standards because they aren't news.
They have no more credibility than a random social media user.
Sure, okay, look at the source with skepticism - I certainly do. It just doesn't make sense to not engage critically with the source. And, in this case, this story seems to be completely factual. Trump does intend to expand arms supply to Israel and ease restrictions. So, disbelieving the story in this case would not have brought you to the correct conclusion.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-hezbollah-mideast-latest-12-november-2024-16e57642f460d28e6a5e4f5fe7088a41
https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/us-news/trump-will-speed-up-military-supply-deliveries-to-israel-as-soon-as-he-takes-office-reports/
I guess "default to assuming it's untrue" wasn't how I should've put it.
If they told me the sky was blue, I wouldn't say they're wrong but I'd probably still look up just to be sure.
For sure. I totally agree!