> Will stick with your link to scidev and dailymail for now.
Why link to dailymail at all? They are in no way a reputable news source. Submitting dailymail links is never a good look. If the story holds up, there will be other sources.
They are sensationalist for sure. They are also one of the last sites that will publish stories that TNI tells other publishers to avoid so I am conflicted. In a morbidly funny way the joke scene [1] about tabloids in the movie MIB has in a way become somewhat true.
I do wish there was a mirror site that could only archive just the story and leave out the side-pane of sensationalism.
Trusted News Initiative [1] This is headed up by the Murdoch family of controlling corporations.
The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place.
The partners currently within the TNI are: AP, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU),Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.
The TNI cooperative framework has been jointly developed amongst partners, and relates to only the most serious disinformation, which threatens life or the integrity of the electoral process. This is entirely separate from and does not in any way affect the editorial stance of any partner organization.
You're welcome. TNI is only part of the picture. Each government has a department that works with these groups. The US recently officiated one of the groups rather than trying to hide it. [1]
There is no such thing as a reputable news source. Generally speaking when someone points to a "reputable news source" they are referring to a establishment news source. If a claim is important to you verify it to the best of your ability, otherwise consider all news as opinion.
If you have a better one, sure share that. However dismissing entire publication out of hand is how the establishment controls narratives.
This opinion about alternative news sources you have, where did it come from? Perhaps one of those trustworthy news sources or experts you are to never question?
By closing yourself off to alternative news sources entirely you are allowing yourself to only consume the mainstream narrative. This is why I push back on dismissals based on the source, don't be so lazy, explain what you think they got wrong without appealing to authority.
I ventured no opinion about "alternative news sources" in general, just on the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is not even an "alternative news source" in any way, it's just owned by a different billionaire to the rest.
Since you ask, most I don't trust it because of the sensationalism, the nakedly partisan fearmongering, the dumbed-down mean-spirited hate-filled reactionary world-view, the criminal phone hacking, and the habit of stealing images from people's social media and using them without permission, attribution, or payment.
Please don't use loaded language like "don't be so lazy", "you are to never question", it's borderline insulting. Especially when using lazy stereotypes about "your opinion comes from mainstream media", which again is a ludicrous defence of the Daily Mail
> are allowing yourself to only consume the mainstream narrative.
This is tinfoil hat stuff. But sure, go ahead name an "alternative news source" that you think is really good? Let's see what "unbiased" looks like to you.
If we dismissed news organizations that have biases we would have no articles to comment on. News is inherently editorial, you can't cover everything so you have to pick and choose what is "important". Guess what? Things that make news organizations owners, advertisers or preferred political candidates look bad is often found to be less "important" than things that make them look good.
It's just how humans work. You don't go to college and get paid low wages to report on the unbiased truth, you do it to push for whatever your personal definition of good is.
We can utilize this human flaw to our advantage. A newspaper owned by one billionaire might on occasion dig up some dirt on another. If we just dismiss them then we will miss it and sometimes it checks out.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136912
https://www.scidev.net/global/news/prepare-for-disease-deadl...
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230523/WHO-chief-World-m...