Sami

Theyre all relaying the same info from an electricite du liban statement…

What part of the content of the article do you think is untrue?

That looks correct to me. Try doing a Ctrl+F5 on the theme selection page in settings for it to show up in the dropdown if you haven’t done that.

You need to put the .css file directly into the extra_theme folder. As for documentation and how to make them I didn’t find much myself so I did some trial and error with another person’s custom theme. I’ve got some commented stuff at the bottom of our instance’s theme if that’s of any help.

https://lemmy.zip/css/themes/folded-v5.css

a significant bias against actions taken by Israel

uses emotionally loaded language, such as “genocide” and “enabling,”

left-biased due to its focus on human rights issues

It would be funny if this bot wasn’t actively poisoning the well in the largest news communities

The quotes don’t support your claim of 35-40k being the realistic upper estimates. Your intellectual dishonesty and moral inconsistency is what upsets me.

Yes, that’s what happens when you use starvation and disease as weapons of war and cut off all access to the outside world for independent verification; you end up with estimates of deaths resulting from the conditions inflicted.

They just killed at least 100 people by bombing a school since you commented this. Why are you so eager to minimize the genocide?

The official number was at 30k only 2 months in and that was only the names confirmed by a medical system already at the brink. Do you genuinely believe it only rose by 5-10k in subsequent 8 months of unrelenting assault? US doctors said that they have compelling reason to believe the death toll is 90k+ based on their time treating the wounded there. Another estimate is at 180k published in a medical journal as previously mentioned. Hamas were estimated to number around 30k before the conflict began (About 1k were killed inside Israel after Oct 7 and were not counted in the death toll) and they are still capable of fighting in most areas of Gaza according to recent reports.

Removed by mod

How do you feel about the rising islamophobia culminating in riots in the UK?

Here’s a picture of the 2 confirmed victims of that first strike you’re referring to.

Edit for sake of accuracy: Hezballah just confirmed the death of their targeted member after previously claiming he survived which should put death toll at 4 including a woman and the 2 mentioned kids along with 74 injured in the strike

At the time, I watched the video and I didn’t even catch the word so I thought the claim came from other footage and I was under the impression that it was deliberate misrepresentation of words. I went back to listen to the part where he says it but I still couldn’t make it out definitively (maybe that’s on me if you can).

For video recording I use OBS and for zip files I use 7-Zip

Like clockwork

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it’s just a bunch of fake names on a page.

I’m not talking about their source of funding but their qualifications in making claims with such broad implications. It looks like the pet project of some guy and couple faceless names who do not even claim any meaningful professional or academic experience.

Here’s an example from your link:

Jim resides in Shreveport, Louisiana with his two boys and is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction. Jim is a registered independent voter that tends to lean conservative on most issues.

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Yeah, looks great to me.

That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.