Context:

The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.

Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦

  • remon@ani.social
    44·
    4 hours ago

    I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.

    And if you asked on .grad or .ml, peopel will say their reporting on Russia/Ukraine is ok, too.

    The fact that this publisher was funded by the Syrian, Russian and Iranian government is more then enough red flags for me to compleltey dismiss them as a source. If individual articles have merit, they’ll be published somewhere else.

    Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.

    If the only site willing to publish a specific article is a Kremlin propaganda site, you should stop and ask why.

    If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.

    That is some terrible logic.

    Ignoring someone that has repeatedly and deliberately lied to you is common sense. They can’t be trusted. But that doesn’t mean that someone that has never lied to you is infallible. They could still make mistakes or start lying to you tomorrow. You should never turst blindly. They are two completely indepent scenarios.