Comment on Labour Party members just defected to Your Party en masse
rjek@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Reminder that The Canary is run by frothy-mouthed moaners who spin everything negatively unless personally blessed by Corbyn. It is not balanced, fair, or independent reporting. It’s clearly also nonsense, as “en masse” implies the entire group previously described, and I’m pretty sure a) the Labour Party still has members, b) Your Party can’t even decide how it is you become a member.
They’re also very happy to just straight up lie or spread conspiracy theories, which I find frustrating.
Even if they cracked a good story, I’d have no idea whether it’s true or not, because they’ve shown themselves to basically be The Express but for Corbyn’s most faithful following.
I read them from time to time. Can you give an example of where they “straight up lie or spread conspiracy theories”? They report on rumours or gossip - but that’s little different than a mainstream journalist citing “sources”. I take into account their political slant when I read them, though.
Neither is any media balanced these days. Mass media is effectively kneeling before Nigel Farage like he’s had a crown on his head.
I say let The Canary do it. Might balance things out.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Jumping in here, they’re fond of distorting the facts to make better outrage bait. They still take every opportunity to claim Palestine Action were targeting planes that were refuelling Israeli jets, the problem with that being the British refuelling system is incompatible with the one Israel uses.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
As far as I can see they never said that. They just quoted Palestine Action saying that.
thecanary.co/…/breaking-palestine-action-break-in…
And the later article www.thecanary.co/…/doha-raf-refuelling-plane/ said that about F35 which can be refueled by Airbus KC3 Voyager.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Israeli F35s can’t be refuelled by British tankers. They use a completely different system. If the Canary had fact-checked, they’d have realised the British tankers circling Doha were highly unlikely to be party to the Israeli attack on Qatar, as they were in fact participating in a joint exercise with… erm, Qatar.
It’s a pity, because they cover some stuff others don’t.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Bothsiding ? Oh we’re turning it into a verb now are we? OK. Cool.
I have to disagree with that. Not pretending to world is simple and presenting a balanced view of a story is a mature aged responsible thing to do as a news site. Obviously people will disagree but to hide information or distort it is not news. It’s dirty propaganda.
We need less of these kinds of site that amplify hate towards others and pretend the world is simpler than it is. No wonder we’re so fucked and divided as a country. The exact same thing Farage is doing to right wingers, sites like these are doing to left wingers.
FFS.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
It’s a thing, though apparently I missed a hyphen. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bothsidesism
So in other become corporate news and support elite class agenda of class divide by doing “fair” reporting that prevents any meaningful reform as a matter of policy. Great idea.
There are facts and then there is perspective. Facts should be presented accurately. Not hiding your perspective is the reporting is not “propoganda”. It’s more honest to be honest since everyone knows where you stand and can decide for themselves how they feel about it.
Can you source this? I’m not aware of them amplifying hate.
Wakmrow@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
Lol no, it’s not mature to debate obvious falsehoods
Horse@lemmygrad.ml 3 weeks ago
no it isn’t, it’s lazy thinking for children
ashughes@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Bothsidesing whereby an organisation presents propaganda from the left and the right as equally factual to construct a straw man of a middle ground as truth is definitely bad, as is presenting one side’s propaganda as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I expect any legitimate news outlet to inform the public of the nuance on a given topic because it is within the nuance where the truth often lies. It is then helpful and informative to present how “both sides” are trying to frame that topic by excluding the nuance, thereby obscuring the truth. Journalism as a public service is there to inform me about what is happening in depth and in a debiased manner so I can think critically about it (if the UK has any news outlets that meet this standard, that’s news to me). Painting real, hard journalism as “bothsidesing” only serves to destroy the concept of nuance, which is just about the only thing both sides can agree on: destroy the middle ground and they’ll be able to keep us pawns fighting forever.
You may think having a Nigel Farage or Fox News for the left brings balance but it doesn’t. It only serves to keep us fighting each other rather than fighting the status quo. If you’re reading the Canary solely for entertainment and are able to consistently view it as such then fair enough I guess, just don’t call it news.
To be clear, I am not claiming that you personally are participating in any of the above, just calling out a general worrying trend I am witnessing in our discourse.