Just looking for proof she’s currently a Scientologist.
DolphinMath
Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 18:47:37 UTC
By: Bill Berkrot, Susan Fenton
About Reuters
Country: United Kingdom
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Rating: Least Biased / Very High / High
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Wikipedia Rating: Generally Reliable
Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 14:56:24 UTC
By: Guy Faulconbridge, Filipp Lebedev
About: Reuters
Country: United Kingdom
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Rating: Least Biased / Very High / High
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Wikipedia Rating: Generally Reliable
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Writing by: Tom Perry
Editing by: Frances Kerry
Archive Link: 23 Jun 2024 03:30:27 UTC
Wall Street Journal – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Right-Center
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
MediaBiasFactCheck.com: About + Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Article By: Kejal Vyas
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 14:22:57 UTC
Haha, I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. You’ll notice both MBFC and Ad Fontes were given that status primarily due to being Self-Published. However I wouldn’t consider MBFC or Ad Fontes to be the be-all and end-all perfectly authoritative source either.
You want to debate the specifics of an article from a source I find unreliable. I don’t want to. I wouldn’t want to if someone was posting something from Israel Hayom either.
The beauty of Wikipedia is they cite sources, keep edit history, and have a strong ethos of neutrality.
Smaller articles are more prone to being abused due to the sheer scale of Wikipedia, but are still subject to moderation if reported.
I don’t view Wikipedia articles as definitive, but generally I trust the community and don’t believe it has been overrun by right wing groups like NGO Monitor.
There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia
Media coverage of the crisis there has been very biased and superficial.
Can you be more specific? Is there any particular coverage that you find biased and superficial?
I will admit that some outlets undoubtably cover this better than others, but that is the case in all conflicts.
No shit? I’ve clearly not done any research on the internet before typing my comment. There is no way I already read the article you posted. /s
That said, I’m guessing this is the part of the article you were referring to?
To summarize, she showed up to a single preliminary court date in 2020, but cut contact after details emerged? She also attended a gala a decade ago where her family was present? That’s not really proof of anything.