Whose got the stethoscope theory image?
I mean presstv.ir is literally the iranian government’s english and french language channel
Whose got the stethoscope theory image?
what’s the opposite side of tankes? far right pro 2nd and first amendment?
No. Tankies and conservatives are two sides of the same coin. The opposite side of tankies would be actual non-authoritarian leftists.
so you’re saying the opposite side of tankies is conservatives?
No. Tankies aren’t leftists. They’re authoritarians, and have more in common with conservatives than leftists do. They’re the same side.
Nuclear technology has revolutionized Iranian agriculture?
This is comically dumb.
What, you’ve never heard of nuclear powered tractors? It’s called technology, honey, look it up. NEXT!
The fusion powered combine is amazing! It even comes with a protective suit that is functional and stylish.
Pretty sure there are some French combine harvesters with some nuclear in there. It’s just very low radiation for some sensors but I’m sure it wouldn’t roll in my country.
I have a bridge. If one can believe, I can sell it.
BuT MeDiA BiAs cHeCk iS ShIt aNd cAnT Be tRuStEd
Well, getting this wrong would be like throwing a tennis ball and not hitting the side of the barn. From inside the barn.
The second is somewhat accurate. She has been cheering on Israel quite a bit.
If it’s true and accurate, then one would have no issue finding, and posting, a better source quickly
Manufacturing consent exists (there is a great book detailing how it works) and “better” aka western mainstream media sources systematically skew, omit and promote information, sometimes even spread outright disinformation in line with the political ideology of their owners, their corporate interests or their national ideologies too.
The idea that you would always find a “better source” creates a circular logic, where everything that mainstream media outlets report on and how they report on it is true and relevant and everything else is either false or irrelevant.
This for instance creates “worthy and unworthy victims” as detailed in the book Manufacturing Consent by the example that a polish priest murdered in the 80s was a “worthy victim” that was in the American news cycle for months, while American nuns that were raped and murdered in El Salvador by an US compliant fascist Regime received minimal attention and their murderers received minimal consequences.
By declaring which victims are “worthy and unworthy” on the opposite site it creates which perpetrators are acceptable and which are evil. Thereby Baerbock is a “good perpetrator”. Subsequently mainstream media omits here spreading of disinformation for Israel, Germany’s complicity in Israeli crimes during her period as foreign minister and how she made claims about Civillians being legitimate targets that have been strongly renounced by experts on international law.
The logic of your remark basically breaks down to “our media is good, their media is bad”. The same notion is given by every regime in the world.
This is some high level word salad.
You most definitely can find a better source and use general critical thinking skills. There is no circular logic.
Also ironic to see you talk about “worthy and unworthy victims” when Chomski engages in this regularly (just one example is his open and committed support for russian genocidal imperialism).
People dealing with russian genocidal imperialism are “unworthy victims” because they undermine Chomsky’s sophomoric attitude to towards the bad things that the US has done.
western mainstream media sources systematically skew, omit and promote information, sometimes even spread outright disinformation in line with the political ideology of their owners, their corporate interests or their national ideologies too
As opposed to eastern(?) mainstream media, western non-mainstream media, and eastern(?) non-mainstream media. Propagandistic goals of the media exist always and everywhere, I don’t see why it’s necessary to single out western mainstream media in this discussion. (I’d note that I agree that having some site just throw an unsubstantiated “fake news” label onto news sites is worthless as criticism.)
The point is that the notion of western media being better is wrong. All media is subject to propaganda in varying extend and you must be critical of anything you read or hear.
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.
Did you fact check on a per article basis, before you made this post? Seems that @geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml did that, as the absurd article is ridiculed in NotTheOnion.
Even if that were true, the headline is already framing and extremely biased - that is not good journalism
But is bog standard from pretty much everyone nowadays.
