Iran’s Revolutionary Guard deployed in Yemen
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard deployed in Yemen
Commanders and advisors from Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are on the ground in Yemen and playing a direct role in Houthi rebel attacks on commercial traffic in the Red Sea.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why are you posting propaganda from a tabloid outlet ran by New York Times Zionist writers, which of course has zero evidence provided as is obligatory for these guys.
Semafor - (mediabiasfactcheck.com)
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.Overall, we rate Semafor Least Biased based on providing counter-arguments to stories that differ from the author’s perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITYHistory
Launched on October 19, 2022, Semafor is a news website that hosts 8 newsletters. The website was co-founded by Ben Smith, a media columnist at The New York Times, and Justin Smith, a Bloomberg Media CEO. According to their about page, “We’re exposing the architecture of our original journalism in an effort to rebuild trust from our audience. Our journalists are experts in their own right — but they also know the difference between the facts and their analysis. Our “Semaform” structure makes clear the lines between facts, analysis, opinion, counter-narratives, and global perspectives.”Funded by / Ownership
The website was funded with $25 million in private capital. Advertising and sponsorships generate revenue. However, according to CNBC, Semafor will move to a paywall and subscription model within 18 months.Analysis / Bias
The Semafor website features 8 different newsletters: Flagship, Principals, Business, Technology, Climate, Africa, Americana, and Media. News is reported in their “Semaform” format featuring sections for straight facts, the reporter’s analysis, and counter-narratives. Each story is broken down as follows:- The News
- The Reporter’s View (or analysis)
- Room For Disagreement (or counterargument)
- The View From (or different perspectives on the topic)
- Notable (or some of the best other writing on the subject)
- The website also features news aggregation, where they “distill news, analysis, and opinion from a global range of sources,” summarized so “readers don’t have to search the internet trying to triangulate the truth.”
Articles and headlines use moderately loaded emotional language such as this Russia headed for demographic disaster due to war. All articles reviewed rely on credible sources such as Bloomberg, New York Times, and Foreign Policy.
Editorially, more stories favor the left, such as this Donald Trump’s plan to kill mail ballots in Pennsylvania. A biased quote from the author reads, “Trump’s involvement in the new attack on Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law puts pressure on the state’s divided Republicans to pick a side.” However, due to their Semaform style, a counterpoint is given to balance the author’s point of view. Generally, the news is factual and well-sourced, while viewpoints tend to favor the left slightly. However, we will initially rate them as least biased based on offering counterpoints to their liberal-leaning perspectives. As the site matures and produces more content, we will re-evaluate and makes changes accordingly.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Semafor Least Biased based on providing counter-arguments to stories that differ from the author’s perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information. (D. Van Zandt 10/19/2022)
Source: https://www.semafor.com/
Last Updated on June 30, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Propaganda outlets can quickly be recognized by constant outrageous claims without any evidence except "trust me bro".
You can't debunk my claim by linking MBFC which is also in the Zionist propaganda hole. Evidence from MBFC itself:
The Grayzone:
Analysis / Bias:
The Grayzone produces in-depth journalism from a far-left perspective such as this The US is turning oil-rich Nigeria into a proxy for its Africa wars. All stories reviewed were properly sourced from mostly credible media and information sources.
But their rating score is:
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Furthermore they use foreignpolicy .com to "debunk" grayzone which doesn't even try to hide their Zionism:
And of course blaming Egypt for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza instead of israel.
Guess what FP's rating is? MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
And then we have Radio free Asia in the debunking section, which I ironically heard about recently in a video from BadEmpanada and is quickly proven to be a propganda outlet.
MBFC Credibility Rating? HIGH CREDIBILITY.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What an interesting alternate reality you live in.
If you want to keep believing "newspapers' that make outrageous claims that all rely on unverifiable "anonymous witness evidence", that no other journalist is allowed to cross check, which of us is living in an alternate reality?
40 beheaded babies by the way.
Again: what an interesting alternate reality you live in.
You're so level headed and mature by only being able to repeat ad-hominems. This proves that you are right and I am wrong.
Lol Greg wrecked you
By linking a Zionist rating site that uses propaganda outlets that blame Egypt for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza on their front page, and plead for Germany to bow down harder to israel, as evidence to lower scores of anti-Zionist news?
And gives those pro-israel outlets high rating scores?
🥱
They were judged on their reporting accuracy. Got a source that indicates they are inaccurate?
I just wrote a rather large wall of text about it down below https://lemmy.world/comment/6726272
Yeah cool story nice fanfic they wrote there. Let's use MBFC for funsies but instead of their bad rating system, use the factual part:
Launched on October 19, 2022, Semafor is a news website that hosts 8 newsletters. The website was co-founded by Ben Smith, a media columnist at The New York Times, and Justin Smith, a Bloomberg Media CEO
It's constantly the same circle of propaganda "newspapers". One makes an outrageous claim without evidence claiming they have "anonymous sources" and then the other ones post articles referring to it as evidence.
In this case it's from the 40 beheaded babies and "Iraq has WMD's guys, of course not citing a single one personally because this is a "scoop" without evidence:
"The IRGC has stationed missile and drone trainers and operators in Yemen, as well as personnel providing tactical intelligence support to the Houthis, U.S. and Middle East officials told Semafor."
U.S. and Middle East officials < Which ones? What officials? Military? Rumors going around? Some dude in an Embassy that smokes too much? Evidence?
Zionist living rent free
They're getting paid quite well with American tax dollars
Ew go back to Reddit