hi how are you

According to the joint statement, they will now “be taking immediate steps to cancel bilateral air services agreements with Iran,” and work towards sanctioning Iran Air, the country’s flag carrier.

“Entities and individuals involved with Iran’s ballistic missile program and the transfer of ballistic missiles and other weapons to Russia” will also face sanctions.

. . .

The U.K. released a statement detailing which Iranian individuals and organizations had been sanctioned by both London and Washington.

These include Brigadier General Seyed Hamzeh Ghalandari, the Iranian Defense Ministry’s director general for international relations, Second Brigadier General Ali Jafarabadi, the head of the Space Command of Iran’s Aerospace Force, and Majid Mousavi, Deputy Commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The U.K. also announced sanctions on five Russian cargo ships “for their role in transporting military supplies from Iran to Russia.”

Wikipedia

This paper has a sketchy history. It’s based in Moscow and not listed as a foreign agent. openDemocracy reports here on their history of publishing pro-Kremlin, pro-Putin nonsense. When 5 senior editors quit in response and started another paper, they were immediately labelled “foreign agents”. This is propaganda. Check this uncritical trash about teaching students “media literacy” by depending on the state propaganda network:

The main meaning of the classes is to introduce schoolchildren to TASS as the main state news agency of the country, a source of reliable information about Russia and the world, follows from the scenarios of the classes. The Agency sets itself the task of “protecting the informational boundaries of the country and the truth, which is very often tried and trying to take away,” said Andrei Kondrashov, TASS Director General. In order to become a journalist, it is necessary to “Homeland to love” and be inquisitive, he concluded. (autotranslated)

Wikipedia:

Iran International (Persian: ایران اینترنشنال) is a Persian-language news television channel headquartered in London aimed at Iranian viewers, and broadcasting free-to-air by satellite. Iran International was established in May 2017 and has broadcast its programmes from both London and Washington, D.C. In February 2023, Iran International moved its headquarters temporarily to Washington, D.C. due to increased threats from the Iranian government against their UK-based journalists, but back to London in September 2023.

Programming:

According to Middle East Eye, Iran International is a media platform for the Iranian opposition. Kourosh Ziabari of Al-Monitor wrote it “does not shy away from presenting itself as an opposition media organization” and frequently gives the microphone to guests who criticize the Iranian government. The channel has been referred to as an “Iranian exile news outlet” by Borzou Daragahi of The Independent.

Ownership:

Iran International is owned by Volant Media UK Ltd . . . Corporate documents for Volant Media shows that another Saudi national, Fahad Ibrahim Aldeghither, was the major shareholder of Volant Media before Adel Abdukarim. Aldeghither owned over 75% of the shares of Volant Media from May 2016 to May 2018. Fahad Ibrahim Aldeghither was the chairman of Mobile Telecommunication Company Saudi Arabia (Zain) from March 2013 to February 2016. Zain Saudi is the third-largest telecoms provider in Saudi Arabia.

Editorial Independence:

Though the TV station states that it “adheres to strict international standards of impartiality, balance and accountability”, questions have been raised regarding its editorial independence.

In October 2018, a report by Saeed Kamali Dehghan in The Guardian linked Iran International’s funding to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It also interviewed an unnamed insider who said that the editorial content had been influenced by its investors. A source was reported by The Guardian as saying that Iran International received $250m from Saudi Arabia for launching the channel. The insider and an unnamed ex-employee expressed dismay that Saudi funding had been concealed from the employees. Iran International denied The Guardian’s report . . . Azadeh Moaveni of New York University has charged the channel is an arm of Saudi Arabia: “I would not describe Iran International as pro-reform, or organically Iranian in any manner”.

They said the same thing when he was repeatedly lining up troops along Ukraine’s border.

Who’s ‘they’? The US warned the world repeatedly that Putin was planning an invasion. They spent a month prior to the full-scale invasion herding skeptical cats in Europe trying to get everyone on the same page.

The only information provided by the F.S.B.’s press service has been about criminal cases opened against Western and Ukrainian journalists, who followed the troops onto Russian territory without following Russian customs procedures and getting passport checks.

Always good to end on a comedic note.

https://archive.is/AeZhN

They aren’t really polling well. The best realistic scenario is probably the current one – Libs in power with the NDP holding the balance and making awesome demands. They’re most likely to have way less power after the election. I don’t really get what Singh is seeing in the tea leaves here.

We were just too jealous of you Americans and all the election fun you’re having. We want some too! It’s topple time.

The initial ruling was by a single judge but it was upheld yesterday by a panel of five supreme court justices:

Members of Brazil’s supreme court have unanimously voted to uphold the ban on X, after Elon Musk’s refusal to comply with local laws led to the social network being blocked in one of its biggest markets.

Uh… he’s only had those far-right coalition partners since December 2022. A ceasefire deal that would lead them to topple the government wouldn’t have made a ton of sense in September 2023 (or September 2014). Gantz also wasn’t an opposition leader in 2014. Those don’t seem like unimportant things.

From Mehdi Hassan’s Wikipedia page:

Mehdi Raza Hasan (born July 1979) is a British-American progressive broadcaster, political commentator, columnist, author and co-founder of the media company Zeteo.

. . .

Zeteo was presented as a subscription-based news organization. He announced that the platform will “bring you hard-hitting interviews and unsparing analysis that you won’t find elsewhere”. Hasan presents a new video series on the Zeteo News channel, the first one was called “Debunked! Top seven lies about Gaza”.

Hassan is identified as the founder, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief. His Wiki page says he’s a co-founder but I can’t find mentions of other founders. This is a media company built around Substack newsletters and they generate revenue from subscriptions. This Rolling Stone article says that they also raised $4M in seed money before launch but don’t note the source(s). They just launched in April and there doesn’t appear to be any fact check or bias analysis on them yet.

Prem Thakker is currently listed as a staff reporter for the Intercept, though it says he worked for them “previously.” According to his bio there, he’s also worked for The New Republic, The American Prospect, and CNN. On July 23, he was announced as Zeteo’s “first full-time reporter.”

But it’d be better if they were bringing that to the Fediverse instead of reinventing the wheel with ATP.

Eugen posted that Mastodon (or maybe m.s?) sign-ups from Brazil are up as well, but has anyone posted numbers/analysis?

Edit: “Aug 10, 10 sign-ups from #Brazil. Aug 28, 152 sign-ups from Brazil. Today, 4.2k sign-ups from Brazil. Portuguese (Brazil) has already entered the list of top 8 active languages for the last 30 days.” - Gargron

In a highly unusual move, Justice Moraes also said that any person in Brazil who tried to still use X via common privacy software called a virtual private network, or VPN, could be fined nearly $9,000 a day.

Wild stuff.

There’s obviously no problem with incorporating other sources as well but, as I pointed out in that other thread, MBFC uses the IFCN for fact-checking per their methodology and Wikipedia page. They also explain why they use IFCN fact-checkers in their FAQ.

It’s being brigaded by misinfo ghouls.

MBFC are well-respected, including by their peers. There are lot of people spreading misinformation right now and you shouldn’t take them at their word. Every claim in the other reply to you is false. This source is non-US, rated center left, and is most certainly not “right wing at best.” Peer-reviewed research consistently finds that all bias/quality monitors agree with each other to a high degree. That study compared data from academics, journalists, and organizations (including MBFC). Quite a feat for “one guy’s opinion.” Their methodology is public and, contrary to what the misinfo peddlers might say, explains their ratings.

But what if they never get to a computer??? 😬

It’s always done that. It’s weird, though. MBFC doesn’t appear to actually have a page where they rate themselves. The link just goes to their homepage.

They’re wrong that they rate the Guardian and Breitbart the same. First of all, they don’t have the same credibility rating. You also have to ignore the reports to reach that conclusion. Breitbart is a “Questionable Source.”

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence. Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks

The Guardian are not listed as a Questionable Source. They’ve linked to sources that have failed fact checks and failed numerous fact checks (mostly in Op-Ed), though 4 have recently dropped off the list in the last month or so (I think). Their fact-checking seems to have improved. They say this about them:

The Guardian holds a left-leaning editorial bias and sometimes relies on sources that have failed fact checks. Further, while The Guardian has failed several fact checks, they also produce an incredible amount of content; therefore, most stories are accurate, but the reader must beware, and hence why we assign them a Mixed rating for factual reporting.

‘Be aware that they publish an avalanche of great news but have failed a few fact checks’ is not nearly the same thing as ‘Questionable source that publishes propaganda and conspiracy theories! You must fact-check each article individually because they’re so unreliable.’ There’s no way you could read those pages and conclude those sources are the same. They say that Breitbart is clearly a much more biased and less reliable source (to borrow a phrase).