this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
103 points (90.6% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2229 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence report, released last week, assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of staff had participated in the attack, indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity.

The Wall Street Journal lying about how analysts rate intelligence to help Israeli propaganda? Why I never!

For those having trouble putting 2 and 2 together, this means our intelligence analysts are calling bullshit on Israel's claims.

[–] DolphinMath@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Relevant section from the WSJ article for anyone interested:

In the new report, which was completed last week, the U.S.’s National Intelligence Council, a group of veteran intelligence analysts, said it assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of Unrwa staffers participated in the Oct. 7 attack, those familiar with the findings said.

A low-confidence assessment indicates that the U.S. intelligence community believes the claims are plausible but cannot make a stronger assertion because it doesn’t have its own independent confirmation. The U.S. concluded the claims are “credible,” a U.S. official said.

U.S. officials said that American spy agencies haven’t traditionally focused on gathering intelligence on Gaza, and that Israel hadn’t shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the U.S., limiting their ability to reach clearer conclusions.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

And that's where the article is lying. "Low Confidence" is the rating that's essentially the trash bin. If they believed the claims were plausible they'd at least rate it moderate.

The official that says it's credible is Jake Sullivan, he said it publicly right after Israel made their claims.

I cannot overstate how trash the WSJ is on international politics. It's heavily biased at the least.