• athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Media bias / fact check for Voice of Europe;

    Bias: Extreme Right

    Credibility: Low

    .Notes: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam. Voice of Europe also has a poor track record with fact checkers.

    Overall, this site is Questionable due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor sourcing. 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 the purpose of profit or influence.

    Sure sounds like a source I want to line the litterbox with.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Why do you say that media bias fact check is baseless propaganda?

        edit: One of the most left leaning but highly factual news sites I go to is Fair.org. This site is almost always against the major mainstream media consensus, but backs up its claims with lots of high quality reasoning and evidence. MBFC rate it left-center and high factual reporting.

        It gives Jacobin, probably one of the biggest left leaning news sites in the US, a left leaning and high factual reporting score. Jacobin calls themselves left leaning, of course. For anyone who knows history, it’s right in their name. So what’s the problem there?

        Meanwhile, it gives all the major right wing news sites poor ratings. Fox News, Breitbart, Epoch times, etc. get an extreme right and Mixed factual reporting score.

        So I understand why you would besmirch MBFC if you’re some rightwinger. But, from the left, I don’t understand. Reality has a left leaning bias.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It’s true that MBFC biased but it’s consistent with its bias. Just shift their ratings to the right by about a meter then it will be accurate.

    • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      As far as I can tell they just translated a Defence Arabia article and cross-referenced it with publicly available information on US deliveries to Ukraine. In another comment, I cited the original article (in Arabic) that they appear to draw from.

  • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Could this be from an agreement/treaty already put in place before Russia’s invasion?

    • Delta_V@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      USA and Morocco signed a treaty 1786 which remains the longest unbroken relationship in U.S. history, in 2004 Morocco was declared a “Major Non-NATO Ally”, and Morocco’s military and law enforcement train and work together with their U.S. counterparts.

    • Tosti@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or those Russian tanks they had are now freed up to be transported elsewhere.

    • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not quite. Morocco has historical claims to the Western Sahara as well as Mauritania. Morocco was carved up by the Spanish and French during the scramble for Africa in the 19th century. While Morocco eventually gave up its claims to Mauritania it retained the Rif and Western Sahara.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Stolen land? Every single person alive today is on stolen land. The only difference is how recently their ancestors stole it.

      Even the first nations of North America stole land from other tribes for a few millenia before the Europeans showed up and stole it all.

      The world has never been, and will never be, a static place.

      There are plenty of reasons to help out disadvantaged or oppressed groups, ownership of land just isn’t one of them.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Contested ownership of land is one of the driving forces behind violent oppression, torture, internment without due process, ethnic cleansing etc etc.

        There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being opposed to this stuff.

        Every single person alive today is on stolen land.

        Plenty of our ancestors raped people but saying “every single person alive today has DNA from rape” is not a very good reason to support more rape now.

      • ExLisper@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Every single person alive today is on stolen land

        Who the Aborigines stole the land from? Or Polynesians?

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Each other.

          These people fought, they aren’t some sort of saints that always got along peacefully for 60,000 years.

          This part of history always gets ignored, but there are archeology studies showing it definitely happened.

          • ExLisper@linux.community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Interesting theory. So Americans stole the land from Americans because there was a civil war? That’s definitely a way to look at it.

            • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              You’re grouping together people who were not together. The different tribes that existed were similar to the countries that exist today, though obviously a little less formal in nature.

              It’s not a civil war when two different tribes fought. Any more than it would be a civil war if Canada and the US fought.

  • livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well yeah they’re a colonial occupying power. Ukraine is just trying to resist one.