Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal

Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal

Chinese and Philippine vessels collided on Monday during a confrontation near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, the two countries said.

Both countries blamed each other for the incident near the Sabina Shoal.

China and the Philippines have had repeated confrontations in the vital waterway in recent months, including around a warship grounded years ago by Manila on the contested Second Thomas Shoal that hosts a garrison. Beijing has continued to press its claims to almost the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling that its assertion has no legal basis.

  • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    82·
    3 months ago

    If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes. You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      41·
      3 months ago

      “If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes.”

      Big if.

      are you making up a series of interdependent assumptions or do you have real data to look at?

      “You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?”

      No, what gives you the impression those two organizations are equally credible news sources?

      Because boy, are you in for a surprise.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        31·
        3 months ago

        As pointed out above me, MBFC seems to think so. It gives both a MIXED rating. I don’t really get what you’re trying to argue here? Am I misunderstanding something?

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          3 months ago

          i think you are, yes.

          I’m trying to establish if your multiple assumptions above are based in fact or just a few somethings you’ve made up, which I’d hardly call an argument.

          It sounds like you’re saying “If x were true, then y cant be trusted”.

          Is x true?

          • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            33·
            3 months ago

            I shouldn’t have to be the one to provide evidence, because MBFC is the site that is making the claim that Breitbart is on the same level of factuality as the BBC. They say that both had numerous factual errors over the years. I’m not disputing that, the BBC is not great when it comes to many issues. But the BBC consists of several broadcasting channels, radio and news outlets. They publish several dozen pieces a day. Breitbart has nowhere near that volume. I was making the point that volume does play a big role, because for credibility, it is the relative accuracy that counts, not the absolute number of mistakes. If you don’t see that point, we can stop right here, the discussion would be pointless.

            The thing you are asking for, me providing specific counts for mistakes in reporting, is next to impossible. Still, here is an independent report, focused on statistics as reported by the BBC, that finds that in their sample about 4% of statistics were further challenged, so the number of false statistics reported is likely about that number:

            https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/stats_impartiality/content_analysis.pdf

            As for Breitbart, and I can’t believe I have to spell this out, here is their introduction on Wikipedia:

            Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]

            If you think that these two are even remotely similar or deserve to be in the same category of factuality, I don’t know what else to say to you.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              41·
              3 months ago

              BBC is rated pretty high, as i recall.

              Yea, BBC is rated high center-left:

              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

              Breitbart is rated Mixed far-right, two rankings lower as a “questionable source”

              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart

              again, these are simple assumptions you’re making that you could have checked before making such a stand.

              everything you said is wrong because you couldn’t be bothered to check the facts.

              • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                41·
                3 months ago

                I feel like a total idiot now, some time between reading the original comment and my reply my brain substituted BBC for The Guardian, sorry for wasting both our times on that :'D

                My criticism still stands, because it does rate The Guardian as mixed as well.

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  32·
                  3 months ago

                  no sweat. The mbfc meter is more nuanced than it appears.

                  “mixed” is one metric.

                  As for news credibility based on bias, spin and fact-checking,

                  Breitbart has “Low Credibility”

                  and

                  The Guardian has “Medium Credibility”