World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
If the BBC thinks Russia was behind the arson attacks on properties and a car connected to the prime minister, I will believe the BBC, for two reasons:
False
Broadly speaking, spy agencies have been known to operate in this fashion. So it's a believable allegation.
But was this guy radicalized by the Russian secret service to target Starmer? Or the British secret service, as further agitation against Russia? Or the Americans or Ukrainians, towards similar ends?
Idk. The BBC isn't exactly above playing it's own role in the espionage game.
The BBC is not reliable.
My experience with them is that they get the facts right.
I suggest that you go check the "Manufacturing Consent" Lemmy community if you think the BBC is a "reliable reporter of facts". If you speak a foreign language I would also suggest you compare the BBC reporting of foreign affairs with the coverage of the same events in the Press elsewhere in Europe (which, by the way, is how I noticed just how must they spinned their news coverage back when I lived in Britain as an immigrant).
As for your second line and judging by the links you provided, you "know" that "Russia has a pattern of this sort of behaviours" because the BBC told you so. In other words, that second line is logically a repetition of the first line.
The BBC is very elegant in their propaganda, almost never outright lying, but they definitelly do cherry-picking, spinning, biased framing, selective reporting and other more subtle forms of misinformation for the purpose of "opinion forming".
I very keenly remember how Russia was blamed by pretty much all of the British press, including the BBC, for Brexit and then eventually came out that Cambridge Analytical were the ones doing most of the Social Network manipulation and they were being paid to do it by rich Americans, not Russia, so I'm logically incredibly skeptic when shit done in Britain by Britons is said by the British Press and British Politicians to be the fault of Russia, because that has the very same stink as the decades of "blame the EU for everything" by British Politicians and Press until Brexit and the "blame Russia" since.
The Public School Educated Elites that control power and the Press blaming foreigners in some way or other for the problems in Britain is self-serving and because it happens repeatedly it's thus highly suspicious.
The BBC isn't the only one reporting about these Russian "adventures", you know? At some point you just have to realize that Russia is influencing people in multiple countries it perceives as enemies. This isn't anything new.
I lived in Britain for over a decade.
Literally the only part of the British Press which is impeccably honest and hence trustworthy is the Private Eye, and they're a weekly Satirical Magazine.
The rest are either billionaire-owned tabloids telling you all about how immigrants are both stealing people's jobs AND AT THE SAME TIME living of benefits and how the poor are lazy, or managed by boards of people with Lord and Sir titles and populated by Public School Educated "Journalists" and commentators who often are very open about how they are "Opinion Makers" (i.e. they're there to convince you to have certain opinions) - in other words, they're at best "The Voice Of The British Upper Middle Class" and if you've ever personally known anybody from the upper echelons of British Society, their entire education is all about how the right thing to do is to tell people what they want to hear or that which makes you look good.
(More broadly, it is fucking shocking how posh boys are pretty much taught to be Sociopaths)
Some years ago a poll came out and in all of Europe the British Press was the least trusted by the locals.
Having lived in a couple of countries in Europe and speaking the language of all of them, in my experience the Press in Britain is the least trustworthy one with the most spin and biggest biases, especially when it comes to international affairs or more generally Britain In The World.
No. Other reliable sources have also mentioned the stories I raised. Here is the UK police talking about the Russia-backed arson of a warehouse in London. And here on the UK government's website you can find the report of the inquiry into the Salisbury poisonings (with a Russian chemical weapon) in 2018.
That inquiry which I mentioned was conducted by a senior judge, who concluded this:
Oh yeah, the Salisbury poisonings have more than enough evidence which was actually examined by a proper legal entity (not merelly the coppers).
It's also literally the only case of Russian interference proven in the last couple of years and it wasn't even against Britain, British Interests or Britons - it was an assassination of a Russian that happenned in Britain because that's were he was living (though if I remember it correctly there were British victims though they were collateral damage rather than the target).
One case of the Russian State assassinating a Russia citizen in Britain, which was actually examined and confirmed by a proper legal entity, is not sufficient evidence to presume that every bad thing that happens in Britain against British Interests or Britons is done by Russia.
Mind you, I can understand how that highly publicized case (I was living in Britain at the time) convinced a lot of people that there was some kind of grand conspiracy targetting of Britain by Russia - most people (Britons or otherwise) don't logically analyse these things, so its pretty easy for the local "opinion makers" to portray a single proven instance with massive press coverage as "evidence" of some grand conspiracy because if they don't logically analyse things people tend to confuse "abundant and loud press coverage" with something being common and frequent (an error in human perception is very often exploited by politicians by making a mountain out of a molehill),