Reliable sources for developments in Iran.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

I am not bringing this up because of any particular thread in LBN.

It looks as if things are about to get worse. We will be flooded with stories from Iran.

Whom to believe? Sites claiming to be news sites have been popping up like toadstools after the rain. Most steal stories someone else has written.

As well, I am wary of any claims made by Iran's Ministry of Information. I trust them as much as I trust Karoline Leavitt.

Note the recent story about the land mines said to be placed in Iran by the US. Newspapers had no choice but to cover that, but they were careful to note that their stories were based on accounts originating with Iran's Ministry of Information.

Should DU place an embargo on articles coming from these new and largely unheard of sources? Should it establish a list of acceptable sources?

Aljazeera has been around for years. I can rely on anything I read from them. Maybe stories from AFP, or France 24, or the usual US-based news sources with a string of Pulitzer Prizes to their names would also get automatic waivers.

I am not looking forward to this.

Thanks.

[EarlG]

1. My advice is the same as always

Be cautious about anything you read on the Internet, and the sketchier the source, the more caution you should exercise.

Be especially cautious about anything that comes directly from social media -- even things that appear to be legitimate at first glance. In general, if something comes from X, BlueSky, or Threads, you should probably immediately double-check to see if the information can be found elsewhere before promoting or re-sharing it.

As you say, it should be a no-brainer that claims made by Iran's Ministry of Information have as much legitimacy as claims made by Karoline Leavitt, which is to say, no legitimacy whatsoever. Nevertheless, legitimate news outlets will report what Iran's MOI is saying -- just as they report what Karoline Leavitt is saying. That is part of their news-gathering responsibility. It doesn't mean we have to treat propaganda as legitimate information.

Other than that, I don't see the need to create a list of acceptable or unacceptable sources, but I will reiterate once again that DU members should use a great deal of caution when bringing content from social media. If you are simply reposting something that popped up in your feed because it sounds good to you, without bothering to go check and find out if the source is a hive of homophobia, antisemitism, or "America First" nonsense, then it's on you if your post ends up getting removed for bigotry or peddling right wing talking points.

[jmbar2]

2. I've been watching Al Jazeera a lot lately

I understand that all media have a slant, but its coverage is extensive, with few ads.

They just did an excellent segment on the threat to Cuba and I was impressed with the interviewer. We rarely get to hear extended discussions about the POV of our "adversaries".

Cuba poses no threat to us.

[progree]

3. I have the same impression of LBN posts about how the war is going in Ukraine

I'm "pro-Ukraine" as my avatar suggests, but frankly I don't think posts from Ukraine sources about how the war is going meet LBN standards, although I don't alert on them as I know it would be a waste of the hosts' and my time. (Ditto Russian sources of course, although I would be much more likely to alert on them if I saw them).

I always thought LBN was supposed to have a higher standard about what are and aren't "reputable mainstream sources" than general DU posts (which aren't subject to the "reputable mainstream" rule, but just to rules like about RW sources, RW talking points, and Kooky/extremist), but I guess maybe I'm wrong about that.

And then there are all the videos being posted (on DU generally, thankfully not on LBN), that long have made me wonder why not, by then/now, the last remnants of the Russian military and government aren't reduced to barely holding out in a last redoubt at the tip of the Kamchatka peninsula.