A New York Times story claiming a pattern of gender-based violence on October 7 hinged on the story of Gal Abdush. But the Abdush family says there is no proof she was raped, and that Times reporters interviewed them under false pretenses.
‘YNET’ published an interview with Etti Brakha, Gal Abdush’s mother. the mother says that the family knew nothing about the sexual assault issue until the piece in the Times was published.
Nissim Abdush, Nagi’s brother, appeared in an interview on Israeli Channel 13. Nissim repeatedly denied that his sister-in-law was raped.
Gal’s sisters also denied allegations of rape. Her sister Tali Barakha posted ‘No one can know what Gal went through there!
Likewise, Miral Altar, Gals’ sister, wrote a comment on Instagram. Altar said: ‘I can’t understand all these reports. There were many difficult stories, why this story in particular? It’s based on only one video published without the family’s knowledge… .
This a propaganda source and shouldn’t be in news.
MBFC:
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Propaganda, Hate Group, Misinformation
Bias Rating: LEFT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
The article is filled to the brim with evidence both screenshots and links.
New York Times (which gets completely debunked here for falsifying their claims) has a high MBFC score so it doesn’t mean anything.
My issue is you linking to an illegitimate source. If the NYT has been “completely debunked” it shouldn’t be hard to find a valid source. That would be big news about a high profile piece of investigative reporting. The fact that this is only coming from a propaganda source suggests that that claim is probably false.
The New York Times article provided no evidence and relied on camera footage and witness statements.
This article shows very solid evidence that both of those were unreliable at best and most likely intentionally “misinterpreted”
If you can find something wrong with the article it’s better you post that than some MBFC link.
Congratulations! You just fell for the “Genetic Fallacy”, one of the more common Logical Fallacies. Please do some research and try to do better in the future.
MBFC is a joke.
we rate Mondoweiss as Left Biased and Questionable due to the blending of opinion with news, the promotion of pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist propaganda, occasional reliance on poor sources, and hate group designation by third-party pro-Israel advocates.
Pro Israel advocates being the most reliable people, ofc /s.
It would be great to get more information about this “anti Zionist propaganda” and the reason they’re a hate group but MBFC don’t really explain this so we can never know. We’re just supposed to accept it. My question is: why should we or anybody trust them?
Ed: Rated “mixed” for factual reporting but they write:
As of the latest update, Mondoweiss has not been subjected to fact-checking by an IFCN fact-checker
So what’s the rating based on?
You’re sidestepping a bunch of stuff there. Blending of opinion with news, promotion of propaganda, poor sourcing. Additionally, they don’t seem to print retractions or corrections. This article is also published anonymously.
I don’t have an issue with you making a case about this source. My question to you is the same as to OP: why isn’t anyone else talking about this?
“Completely debunking” an extremely high-profile piece of reporting by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist would be bigger than the initial story itself. And yet here we are with one questionable source publishing a story from an anonymous author.
Out of however many thousands of legitimate news organizations, not a single one is running this story. Why? And why is all of the above not a parade of red flags?
I don’t have an issue with you making a case about this source. My question to you is the same as to OP: why isn’t anyone else talking about this?
I was just making a case about MBFC, yes. I think it is not reliable as a sole source of validation of a source, and treating it that way is a mistake.
I don’t know why anybody else isn’t talking about it. I think you would have to raise a specific issue with this story or its sources to really show it as misinformation. You know the saying, “a lie has gotten half the way around the world before the truth has gotten its pants on” - maybe that’s what’s happening here.
The key point is that MBFC cannot tell us that in it’s current form.
