• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it’s own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc…

    This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn’t make it bad for them to have done.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.

        Calling out the source’s potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter’s sensitivity to context is higher than your own that’s their choice, but it’s not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it’s wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it’s own

      That’s what they do with content they like. When they don’t like it they do exact as Teslekova said. How they treat with information from Al Jazeera is also a good example of this.