Spicy
Dicy.
Because it is. The ADL is conflating antizionism with antisemitism, thus labeling even a ton of antizionist jews as antisemitic.
It is deliberate an in itself an act of antisemitism by the ADL definition, which is an irony they turn a blind eye to ofc.
The ADL is a zionist organization. They benefit from all Jews being lumped together with Israel and they strife from antisemitic attacks. This way the ethnonationalist idea of one state for each ethnicity and "no safety for Jews outside Israel" can be furthered. Incidently this is the same what Nazi style antisemites want and there is a history of collaboration between Nazis and Zionists.
Primary source for those interested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)(excluding the Israel/Palestine conflict)
There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Note that the ADL's reliability on antisemitism and the reliability of its database of hate symbols is currently being discussed.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)(Israel/Palestine conflict)
There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict, owing to occasional misinformation favoring the Israeli government with respect to the conflict.
It's a surprise it was considered reliable before, but better late than never I guess.
I had quite a few discussions with users here quoting wikipedia articles which used the ADL as a source. I was just as surprised as you are as the ADL has not been reliable in the past either. Might have had something to do with
ADL is supporting ethnic clensing and mass murder.
Wait, Fox News isn't banned?
Goes to show how low the bar is that the ADL failed to meet.
Thier actual news reporting is basically fine. It's the other 90% of their content that's all talking heads that blatantly lies about everything where the problems come in.
I have a relative that only watched the channel. When the actual news segments come it's like a wave of fresh air. But then it very quickly changes to the talking heads bullshit.
I'd never willingly watch any of it though.
Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
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!
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/