At the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, Dr Iyad, director of the Kamal Adwan hospital’s maternity department, refused to leave Gaza City, opting to stay with his patients and fulfil his humanitarian mission. But after a month of intense Israeli bombardment and siege, including the targeting of hospitals, he decided to take his family to safety.
He took the road instructed by Israeli forces, assuming it would grant him safe passage. But neither that nor his identifiable medical uniform made any difference.
“Nurse, come,” the soldier said when he spotted him, according to Dina. That was the last time she saw her father.
“I cried a lot that day,” Dina, 19, said. “The last words I said to him were, ‘May God protect you, my father, my love.’" For the next seven months, Iyad, 53, was forcibly disappeared. Dina had no information about his whereabouts.
Her hopes of seeing him again were shattered earlier this month, when it was revealed he died “under torture” in Israeli detention, six days after his arrest.
Unless there’s another one that looks very very similar, I’m guessing its:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
yep. They are by no means perfect, but their competition rates AP and Reuters as left leaning lol, so they are the best we’ve got that I know of.
MBFC is very bad.
They rate israeli propaganda outlets as “high credibility” such as the UNwatch that spouts straight israeli propaganda. Their entire front page still “UNRWA = Hamas” which has already been fully debunked
Which bias checker do you recommend?
Good question. I’ve made up my own mind on newspapers biases so I don’t use a bias checker anymore.
Every “bias checker” has its own bias. There is no such thing as an objective newspaper. It’s best to use sources that don’t have a stake in a conflict. But MBFC is ran by liberal Zionists so they certainly aren’t a good rating source when it comes to israel-Palestine.
I find that, at least with local Canadian Politics, they’re pretty accurate at least. So I’m guessing it would be similar for the U.S, although the number of so-called “media” sources is far larger.
I got blasted in a c/world thread because I used it to show a source that was untrustworthy. And ppl were saying its the factcheckerbias tool is unreliable cuz it rates the NYT as “factual”. I was suprised to get so much pushback.
Sadly, for many people, “factual” means “does it agree with what I already think?”.
Those people are lost causes.