Not saying this isn’t possibly legit, but
Skepticism is healthy in this day and age, but that site is also biased btw. Even the founder says their methodology isn’t unbiased.
When determining bias, there isn’t any true scientific formula that is 100% objective. There are objective measures that can be calculated, but ultimately there will be some subjective judgment to determine these. We have put up a scale with a yellow dot on each page that shows the degree of bias for each source. Each page also has a “detailed report” section that gives some details about the source and explains their bias.
When calculating bias, we are looking at political bias, how factual the information is, and links to credible, verifiable sources. Therefore, the yellow dot may indicate political bias or how factual a source is, or in many cases, both. It is important to note that our bias scale is based on the USA political scale, which may differ from other countries. For example, the Democratic Party of the USA is considered centrist or even right-center in many countries worldwide; however, in the USA, they are considered Left-Center. Please keep this in mind if our ratings seem off in your native country. (08/08/2022)
It’s a site run by one guy and 3 volunteers. Not really the greatest source.
It’s impossible to remove bias, but my link still directly links to some of the outlandish and sometimes outright false things mintpress has published. I won’t be worrying about my covid biochip anytime soon
fair.
Media Bias Fact Check, truly the paragon of reliable news. It directly claims that bias and accuracy are strongly correlated (and thus that centrism is in fact the most accurate), which can’t be true sheerly because US media as a whole is biased away from center by the political climate of the US.
Moreover, MBFC considers institutions like VOA and Center for Democracy and Technology to be “least biased” despite them being part of the US Agency for Global Media, which REQUIRES outlets to be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States.
You’re not evaluating media bias, you’re evaluating media alignment with US policy.
We are using batshit crazy conspiracy websites as sources now?
What’s next, gonna post some OAN too?
Fucking bootlickers.
Would you be surprised if it was true, though? This is right out of the CIA playbook and there’s a laundry list of historical evidence that would support that the CIA has the means, motive, and opportunity to do so.
It doesn’t matter.
Something being plausible does not excuse literal fake news.
Means, motive, and opportunity, yet it’s fake news.
I guess that’s how OJ got off, huh?
Not factually accurate and made up story? Yes that’s fake news.
Just because it looks plausible means jack shit if it never actually happened.
Lol, that’s a hell of a “leak”, good enough for r/conspiracy! Just after a fresh joint military exercise https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-us-garuda-shield-military-exercise-73159bc1badec145b176319404304151
Indonesia is already a democracy, it’s already giving the US most of what it wants and Indonesia relies on the US to defend its minor interests in the South China sea, but thanks for the heads up, if there is a revolution, I’ll know either China, russia or Iran are behind it.
Hahahaha… oh wait, you’re serious?
Being downvoted for a Wikipedia link? You have ghosts following you, it seems.
You have a ghost
sfollowing you, it seems.One single downvote, a brigade does not make.
I see 4 here.
People from different instances don’t see the same number of downvotes.
Example with screenshots here. This person had no idea they were being downvoted by the kbiners for dissing kbin.
I’m on kbin.social, and I still only see two downvotes on the parent post. So this is interesting.
Yeah I know. I’m on kbin too. We don’t see their downvotes and they don’t see ours. I’m pretty sure kbin doesn’t federate downvotes.
The downvotes you can see are from drewdarko and mrnotoriousman who are both from kbin.
If you view this thread on its original instance that comment currently sits on +1. But viewed from our instance its +5 -2 so a total of +3.
What natural resources does the country have to attract the attention of the CIA?
What natural resources does the country have to attract the attention of the CIA?
Are you kidding? It has crude oil. It also exports natural gas, gold, nickel, bauxite, coal, tin, and copper.
It’s the 4th biggest country in the world (and biggest Muslim majority country), it has a large military, and parts of it are colonies that it hangs onto for their mineral wealth.
The CIA have always been interested, and Henry Kissinger helped Indonesia commit a genocide.
Uhh, human beings and lenient labor law, not to mention palm oil, petroleum, and iron?
That explains it…unfortunately.
Better than a coup, I guess
