The official stance of the editorial board:
The Chicago City Council on Wednesday passed a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza, and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson cast the tie-breaking vote. Skeptics wonder when the mayor will support a cease-fire on the West Side.
You must log in or register to comment.
Here a fix for the title. Chicago votes for a cease fire in Israel and Gaza war
Unfortunately, this is the title the official editorial board chose. To be abundantly clear, a cease fire is the only moral position.
I wanted to open people’s eyes to the fact that ‘factual’ and ‘audited’ papers often peddle misinformation.
Oligarch journal votes for irrelevance.
I post this not because I support this headline, on the contrary this is abhorrent and morally bankrupt. Instead I’d like to draw your attention to a disturbing trend I’ve noticed recently of posting ‘mediabiasfactcheck’ to build a standing around a certain paper.
Mediafactcheckbias is not a valid way of establishing credibility nor does it adequately portray the level of bias.
See here:
VS
How can one take the fact check seriously when this should invalidate any legitimacy the WSJ has? They are not only biased but are purposely questioning the death toll of Gaza since it comes from Hamas medical officials, which has been independently verified for decades. They are intentionally conflating the militant group with the ministry of Gaza in an attempt to dismiss the scale of this atrocity.
Please stop posting media bias fact check and please stop taking them seriously.
Another example:
The economist explains that genocide is a misused term in this genocide. Not only is that factually untrue, Israel has unequivocally fit the bill for all four factors that constitute a genocide, but it has been solidified in the ICJ that Israel may be perpetrating a genocide and that a formal genocide hearing will take place. The economist’s official stance was to propagate misinformation, yet it is seen as ‘HIGH’ for factual reporting.
