• Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Even taking all of this screed as true with no qualifications, does that in itself not show that the whole idea of pulling together a few sources about “credibility” and using an objective method to come up with an answer on how trustworthy something is as impossible? By the inputs MBFC list it should be a reasonable if not stellar source, yet they give it the lowest possible rating. Maybe that rating is justified maybe it isnt (I’ve never read anything of theirs) but given the inputs they have it is clear that the majority of the rating is based on the owner’s opinion not on the inputs they have.

    Edit, on actually reading through what you wrote, it seems that the negatives are entirely about being critical of Isreal, is this by itself enough to make something not credible?

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You didnt address my point at all. I was saying that the outcome of Dave’s credibility method does not match up with the stated inputs to his method, showing that the whole thing is far more subjective than he wants to appear. Whether or not that subjective interpretation is reasonable in this case or not doesnt really interest me.