#more like media critical

[eldest-of-katts]

I stopped bdubs' episode partway through, so spoilers for the first part of his episode.

I didn't like this task very much, first they didn't know what it was due to regional differences, which was a little cringe on behalf of whoever was assigning the tasks but it was probably a commenter and the review board probably all knew what it was so I get it.

But the nature of the task? You *have* to lose hearts? Or at least try to? It's basically just a task that very transparently tries to speed up the game. It's for drama, not to have fun!

The second bit, with all the cheating? Impulse, that's fine he didn't cheat all that much beside Skizz being biased, but Scar? Why did you do that Scar?

I get that he's a little impulsive, (no pun intended) but there's a difference between thinking something is going to take a while and punching your friend into a tunnel full of mobs and not helping him escape while the entity cramming keeps him from mining his way out.

He kept saying he thought he could mine out, but he's played Minecraft for years now, he knows you can't mine with something else in your space, let alone ninety mobs dealing damage to you while you get pushed by a water stream.

I get that Scar didn't intend for this, and I don't hold a grudge against him at all, I'm just sort of flabbergasted that he decided to do that at all.

Beyond just scar, some of the tasks this time feel mean. Just flat-out mean spirited more than fun.

I liked the rest of the game so far because it was a good balance between risk and reward and fun and danger. The tasks could be funny (the slang words one) or super risky (kill the dragon!) And each player was getting a good balance of each.

But now it feels less fun. I can see what's happening behind the curtain with the tasks, people are getting antsy that this series is going to last too long, and the tasks are changing to reflect that anxiety.

It makes it less fun.

This series was refreshing because, unlike the other death games, people were playing it more like Minigames than a UHC, and they got to chat and play!

Now the tasks look like they're trying to course-correct into being worse again. Kill your friends. Betray them. Cheat. Lie. Steal. Take damage. Lose hearts. Be meaner. Be nastier. Prepare for the worst. Hope for the worst. Be violent. Be cruel. You're not here to have fun, you're here to win! Play like it!

It just- it made me nauseous a little bit. The way we snapped from being chill to being suspicious of everyone.

Reds existing and yellows existing was fine before, the last few episodes the yellow names were cool, kind of funny, a little danger, but still friends!

But as the series goes on, people are being more and more cagey. I don't like it.

I get that this is how the series usually goes, but it doesn't feel like fun drama this time.

It feels like the kid at the playground that changes the rules while you play to make sure they win. Like we thought we were having fun, but because someone else wanted the game to be more dangerous, now it's not as fun.

The other series had cool groups, cool bonds of trust, epic storylines and mild rp to rely on when it started getting darker.

This series, it feels like the switch was too quick. They didn't have time to ease into those alliances and deeper characters (even if it's not 100% roleplay you do need to adopt a separate persona to kill your friends like that).

The tasks got darker too quickly, and now instead of being a complex web of alliances or a fight for survival, it just feels like people are kind of being dicks for no reason.

I don't know if this is going to continue, but if it does I'm going to quit watching I think, I just don't like to see people being mean when there doesn't seem like there's a reason.

[ot3]

i do get why people are going so hard in on reminding each other that depicting something bad in fiction isn't the same as endorsing that thing. but also i feel like that's a talking point that cedes a lot of ground i'm not willing to cede re: the right to engage with works that do endorse a bunch of bigoted or harmful shit. interacting with a work of fiction that wholeheartedly espouses a worldview you do not agree with isn't a trojan horse that injects hitler particles into your bloodstream or something. like sometimes you read a book and your main takeaway is 'wow this author thinks women are cattle' or something along those lines and nothing about the process of having read that book has in any way damaged your moral integrity. it's fine! it's fine. you can learn a lot about yourself by reading shit that's hostile to your worldview.

[anneapocalypse]

So, just curious how many writers and creators will have to be forcibly outed by relentless harassment before we acknowledge that "This queer characters was written by a cishet person and that's why they're bad" is not good criticism.

[arcanegifs]

God, I'm (yet again) exhausted. What a show. I will say, flaws and all, it's still one of the best animated series I've watched. Ever. No, I don't think it deserves the vitriol it's getting on social media.

I have a LOT of emotions right now. I don't think I'm even thinking straight after watching through everything once. It definitely needs to be re-watched multiple times. No, I'm not offering any kind of insights or anything like that. I think I'm just too emotional seeing my favorite show end.

I really wanna thank the writers, directors, artists, animators, producers, and everyone else who worked on this show for this work of art. It was beautiful, and it's why I love making gifs of this show.

And just because this show has ended, doesn't mean I'll stop making things. There's two whole seasons to work with now. I hope I can have enough free time to post regularly. I still need to make some 8k wallpapers and a ton of gifs haha.

I'll take a break and sleep for now. I'll see what I can make when I wake up tomorrow. I have so many things I want to do, but I also feel like crap and I too, have a life LMAO.

Oh, and I'm still looking forward to the next stories that they tell us! Runeterra truly has amazing lore. Excited to see what's next!

Thank you for all the likes, reblogs, and support you guys give to my lil sideblog! I appreciate you guys so much <3

[ganondoodle]

got this reblog on one of my posts were i talked about being anxious about the future of the zelda series after totk and-

i even went back and unblocked them just to check my own post and check twice what they meant exactly- but i still dont know how they got to these conclusions

i never said i 'want a good uwu ganondorf' (bc that would mean hes aligned with hyrule bc thats how goodness works!!!!11!1!!!), i also dont think of any of the zeldas as 'whores' (seriously, where did that come from?? neither me nor the addition of someone agreeing with me said anything like that??? did they think bc the addition called tloz misogynistic means we think zelda is a whore????? huh???)

its also funny how they say they want zelda to stay a simple fairytale rather than have 'people like me' bc .. one point i talked about in the og post was how the evil arab thing VS good white people media likes to do so much is so normalized here that its simply seen as a simple harmless fairytale trope instead of a big underlying issue in general media and the writers might not even realize it (which is worse) bc the most 'generic' appeal is to people who dont think of it as a problem in the first place, because it is so normalized

(huh, i wonder about what kind of person that part was about .. hmmmm)

(ALSO funny they mention princess hilda as nuanced villain ... like ... wow they are so nuanced about purple haired people!!- like guess why we want a nuanced/less badly/less flat written ganondorf and what he, in particular, has not in common with other villains! its not his hair color! .... or was that point supposed to mean .. look we have one female character that is a villain, its not misogynistic! idk honestly)

(and the classic, "you just call it this/dont like it bc its not what you wanted !!!!!!!2!"1!112!!")

also funny how its 'never gonna be progressive enough' like asking for the franchise to maybe put a little more thought and nuance into their white divine right vs evil desert man simulator instead of making it worse is already asking too much

(i dont know what the last point has to do with anything??)

(also yes totk is racist, like most if not all of the franchise and a alot of other media as well, shocker- you can still like it though, i and plenty of other people are still fans of it, we just wish they did a little more with their stuff and maybe not make the racism problem WORSE)

(also yes the hyrule monarchy is also evil :))) )

(and also not so secretly so either :)) )

[fossilizedhysterics]

guess who finished tlok tonight and immediately had this come to him in a vision!!!!

[starryalpacasstuff]

Fire (1996): A Mostly Spoiler Free Pitch Because You Should Watch It Immediately

It's time for "An Indian QL bulldozed past my expectations and I am reeling in awe", Part Two!

A few days ago, @neuroticbookworm told me about Fire, an old lesbian Indian movie she'd been wanting to watch. Me being me, I promptly tracked it down and settled in to watch it.

Very loosely based on the 1942 short story Lihaaf, the movie follows Sita, a newly wed bride who is settling in with her in-laws, which is how she meets Radha, who is married to her husband's brother. Both in unhappy marriages, they find solace and company with each other, quickly falling in love. Length: 1 Hour 40 Minutes TWs: Homophobia, C-word mentioned once, some depictions of domestic violence Release: 1996

The is almost entirely in English, and while one generally expects Bollywood movies to be in Hinglish, it's definitely a conscious choice here, which does make me wonder if the movie was supposed to be promoted to a greater international audience. You can find it here on Youtube, most of the (very few) Hindi dialogues have hard subtitles. I think it's also available on Prime? It wasn't available in India though, which is odd, but I didn't bother investigating. Let me know if anyone can figure anything out about this!

Going into this movie, I expected a melodramatic, emotional movie with a bittersweet tone. I did not expect a biting, incredibly engaging movie with excellent satire, symbolism, discussions of chastity culture, and an incredibly sweet, beautifully written romance. And I was certainly not prepared for how incredibly horny this movie is??? Both in subtle tension and overt sex scenes. There's also partial nudity, which again, completely unexpected. If you're going taboo, go taboo all the way I suppose. It's also very well directed, and while I'm not nearly as good at identifying details like that as some of the people on here, I did pick up on some colour coding and interesting framing. It's just overall packed with little details that I think a lot of us would have a field day analysing.

Honestly, I could talk about the cultural nuances in this movie for hours. Contrary to my assumption about the reasoning behind making the movie fully in English, the movie seems to rely on the viewer's understanding of North Indian customs to deliver a lot of it's messages, particularly with its satire, more on that below. While I don't think it's necessary to enjoy the movie, it definitely does add some meat to the story. Then again, I'm a biased party, so it'll be hard to determine just how many messages may be lost to someone from outside of India without someone to compare notes with (this is me shamelessly trying to get you to watch the movie). Honestly, I'd be 100% down to write a more detailed, spoiler-including post that goes into the implicit nuances if people are interested.

There's two main selling points for the movie; the incredible way it shuts down purity and chastity ideology and the absolutely adorable relationship between Radha and Sita. The movie is set on ruthlessly tearing down and emphasizing the ridiculousness of purity culture. A lot of the messaging is indirect and uses metaphors, but there's also several explicit scenes addressing the issue. It's one of the main themes of the movie and I'm almost convinced the real reason it's titled 'Fire' is the sheer number of burns it dishes out on this subject. The romance portion of this movie is one of the thing's that completely defied my expectations. It wasn't sad and dramatic, it was heartfelt and silly and adorable. There's several scenes of the two subtly flirting, laughing together and just being lowkey in love. But that's not to say there's no emotional depth—they're also there for each other and are quite vulnerable with each other.

The movie used a lot of metaphors, but my favourites were the almost satirical representation of mythological stories. In a religion as diverse as Hinduism, every holiday has two dozen stories behind it and each story has two dozen versions, so it's to be expected that you'll find a number of problematic or otherwise kind of ridiculous stories in the mix. The stories were told completely seriously, but the context of the movie highlights their absurd facets in a truly brilliant way. I'm not going to give too much away, but I will say, it was a delight to watch the juxtaposition of the myths and the storyline of the movie, particularly it's ties to the purity culture discussion. You'll understand when you watch it. I'm not turning this into a Hindu mythology lesson (yet) but one interesting tidbit is that Radha and Sita are both names of mythological figures; namely the partners of two of the most worshipped avatars of the god Vishnu: Krishna and Rama respectively. And I was overjoyed to find that their names do have relevance to the metaphors in the story, particularly Sita's.

When the movie was first released, there were massive protests against it, I'm talking hundreds of people storming into theatres to destroy them and drive away audiences. I don't know what to say here beyond this, but what I will say is that I think Fire is an amazing movie that absolutely does not deserve to be lost to the sands of time. I hope you give it a shot, and if you do, tag me in any posts you make about it!

Tagging people who seemed interested in recs from my last post, let me know if you'd rather I not tag you!

@lurkingshan @impala124 @bengiyo @letgomaggie @winnysatang

@watertightvines @nutcasewithaknife @blorbingqls @twig-tea

@waitmyturtles @cryingatships @benkaben @usertoxicyaoi

@befuddledcinnamonroll @flyingrosebeetle

[thr0wnawayy]

Has anyone else noticed this?

Does anyone ever think about how they watered down the sound effects during the flashbacks to Touya's past, in order to make it seem like the abuse the Himura's suffered wasn't as severe as it actually was?

When you compare Shoto's flashback and the intensity of the strike that Rei was hit with + the sound of her falling to the floor and compare it to when Enji is abusing her because he can't be bothered to interact with anyone other than his living weapon Shoto.

You realize how downplayed everything is. The SFX are softer, the motions less dramatic and even entire scenes are cut out (Rei is never shown hitting the floor in the retconned (falsified) version of events)

All this in an attempt to wash the severity of Enji's abuse. Honestly it's kind of disgusting.

[lynxalon]

i've seen a fair bit of... pessimism about dorym lately, esp with the ep107, for example wondering if dorian's opposing views on the gods making orym fall out of love, and i have to say. i very highly doubt it, ur fr talking about the man who has held on to will for so long, holding onto will's family and affectionately calling this *his* family too because that didn't stop when will died. i dont think falling out of love is an option or even a thought to orym.

that said, we know that orym has contingencies for if anyone in bells hells crosses the line into being a version of themselves they would despise, for anyone who jeopardizes their mission. his mission. i think, for the first time since knowing dorian, orym finally has a contingency for him. the longer dorian is back, the more orym sees how scarred he is by what's happened (understandable so) and knows that dorian is with bells hells all the way. but if he isn't...

[scarletfasinera]

Like what's funny is that none of the people criticizing the categorization of Stardew/AC/other “cozy” games are saying that those games are Evil and Bad and you should Stop Playing Them, in fact many of the people commenting on it do actually Like those games, they're just critiquing how the entire concept that makes these games work is that they hinge on the ideology of imperialist and colonist “cottagecore”-type ideals in order to maintain that “coziness” or “wholesomeness.” Which is an entirely valid criticism to make, and is just a true statement to make about the marketing of those games.

It isn't even discourse. They're not saying to boycott the games or anything. It's saying "You can play these games and that doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't even make the creator a bad person, but you should examine the biases you have that cause you to think this way, and consider that this type of marketing IS insidious to those of us who are directly affected by the very same 'marketing' (propaganda) that lead to the colonization of our homes."

But over and over again people will read posts about this, sometimes posts in which "no I'm not 'canceling' the game & I'm not saying you're a bad person & I'm not just discoursing; I am just pointing out a Fact because I want people to actually Think about it" is stated EXPLICITLY, and I will still see people responding or vaguing about it like "oh people are trying to cancel Stardew Valley & Animal Crossing now!" or "Are you saying I'm a bad person for playing those games? Are those games bad now???" like the point just completely going over their head despite it being right in front of them. And it's like please read posts entirely before commenting, and stop projecting your personal worldviews and thought processes and values onto other people.

Also remember that people on this website exist who do not live in North America or Europe, because we are actually not the center of the world and the only people on tumblr. People outside of the imperial core who are more directly affected by these things and are more likely to notice them BECAUSE of their own life experiences are active on tumblr and make posts you see every day, and they do not have the exact same worldview that you do. So you just really need to stop assuming things and putting words in people's mouths, and just take what they say in better faith without leaping to extremes and lecturing them.

[celtrist]

I really want to see a more fucked up version of Charlie in canon. Like, okay, I am a die-hard for sweet bubbly girls in media. But I always see how some people make Charlie actually, oh I dunno... demonic? And it's so refreshing for her type of character. I could honestly see her having low empathy (and we kinda see this with how she handled Angel's situation or even Vaggie's nervousness about taking control on an activity). An exploration of that trait (if it was intended) would be interesting to see for a protagonist, especially when her main goal is about helping others. I would love to see her actually have a level of difficulty in understanding others' feelings from the other residents, sinners, and even her father.

But give her a fucked up side. Not a "she gets more power when she's angey uwu", but a "oh, she's a little fucked in the head". It would give so much to her character that she just doesn't have.

@/murmurmurena (don't wanna bother them so slash there we go) has some fun ideas with Charlie. I highly encourage people to check their stuff out! So many fun dark ideas with her character while also still keeping to her canon personality pretty well! Personally, I think Charlie being a bit more naive to her own messed up traits would work best but her also being aware of these traits can make for some interesting character for her.

THIS FIC, "A Game Between You and I". RIGHT HERE WITH THE FIRST CHAPTER. A bit of spoil for the fic here: but I love how they handled Charlie’s absolute ignorance as to why the idea of Russian roulette is horrifying to Angel Dust. It doesn't feel like her being intentionally malicious or aware that she's the odd man out here. This is also a pretty old fic going by only the pilot, but the point still stands that it was such a fun take for her character!

Charlie is one of my favorite characters in the show in part of the POTENTIAL she could have as being the most bubbly sweetheart character while also being the most messed up character in the show. I can't say I have strong confidence with the show's writing and fully expect them to stick with Charlie being the "nice girl but oh no, don't get her angry or she gets scarwy". Which isn't bad for a character mind you, there's just so much more potential to Charlie outside of that trope, especially when you get into the theories of her either being a doll, Roo's biological daughter, or what have you. And for the MAIN CHARACTER of the show, it would be not only interesting but also bring the spotlight back to her.

There's really no question that the side characters steal the show, particularly all the male characters. If I'm honest, Charlie does not feel like she gets a lot of love from the show itself when she's supposed to be the main character. She feels far more flat compared to the rest of the characters (again, the male cast in this "female-lead" show has more depth than most of the female cast currently. I wouldn't be pointing this tidbit concerning the genders of characters if it weren't for the fact Viv defended Helluva's lack of development with their female cast by saying "Hazbin is a female-lead show and Helluva is a male-lead" and Hazbin ended up with it not feeling female lead (to me) and the male cast just completely stealing the show. I don't normally care about gender stuff, especially since I do personally lean interest towards male characters. But using one show as a defense for poor development of the female characters, and then that show not really holding up with no very interesting well-developed feeling female characters irritates me. It's just very clear that these shows don't seem to care much about the female cast :/)

If you like how Charlie is written that's totally fine. PERSONALLY, I just think they're missing so much opportunity with her character by just making her the standard female character type. I honestly don't have a lot of faith they'll actually do something with Charlie's character though. She's a pretty static character in S1 being the same from start to end. Not changing or learning anything to create any development. What does the end of season Charlie do that start of season Charlie wouldn't do? Fight back? Because we see with the pilot (which is the “first episode”) that Charlie does fight people if pushed like with Katie Killjoy and even Valentino. Static characters can work in media depending on the show or their role. But Charlie is the MC of a show about “bettering one's self”. So to have her as a static with not a lot of strong dilemmas for herself (like we see with Angel Husk Al and even Vox) seems silly. Plus, considering Hazbin is telling a whole story and it's not a fun episodic thing, characters are expected to grow on some level. Or else, what was the point of their hero's journey?

[galedekarios]

i don't know how to put this into words yet so it makes complete sense so bear with me while i gather my thoughts, but...

i think a lot of the criticism i have re: decisions bioware made with veilguard are (at least in part) the company's direct responses to the (in my eyes) often unfounded and disproportionate hate that inquisition received from the fanbase.

[thedissonantverses]

BioWare: Hey here’s a game with explicit anti-fascist messaging, themes of conservation, a plot that resolves a lot of lore threads while opening the door for new lore we haven’t revealed yet, you can make your abolitionist friend the ruler of Minrathous, and imperfect characters setting aside their differences to face an existential threat where you’ll take down the monsters responsible for inventing the worst things in this universe who explicitly want to enslave all of the mortal races and kill the ones they can’t control.

The fandom: And I took that personally.

[redshoes-blues]

Media companies will continue to cannibalize themselves with useless spin-offs of spin-offs and nostalgia bait while they let unique, creative ideas die because they don’t fulfill their profit fantasies.

Do you know how many of my favourite shows I’ve discovered in their second or third seasons through word of mouth? Most of them. It takes time to build fan bases. They don’t just appear overnight. Even in massive success stories like Stranger Things, the first season wasn’t an overnight success. Word of mouth brought in massive viewership, and that sort of organic growth just won’t happen in the limited amount of time these companies are giving shows.

There are so many more shows that I hear about that I’d probably like and give a watch—My Lady Jane, which was cancelled the day after I started watching it, comes to mind—but it feels completely useless to get invested in things anymore when these corporations are cancelling shows left and right because they aren’t the next fucking Mandalorian or Game of Thrones or Bridgerton.

[dollypopup]

hm. idk, maybe the reason Luke Newton isn't announcing new projects or posting any Bridgerton content is because some of you demons treated him like hot trash instead of a creative that you wanted more work from and he decided fuck it, this isn't worth the stress. you know, like a lot of creatives who get mistreated do?

like this is a man who went from couch surfing in a friend's house and bartending to make ends meet, deciding that the Bridgerton audition was the last one he'd do before he quit, to suddenly being recognized on the street because that last audition propelled him to star in a global show where fans who have zero media comprehension blamed him for his character's actions and literally stalked him at any hotel he happens to stay at. he went from being a dude doing musical theatre and shopping at thrift stores and recording random songs with friends and posting silly memes on Twitter to being harassed on his only social media page and his friends insulted and his partners bullied by his supposed 'fans' and anything he posts being so microanalyzed that he can't do a damn thing without someone coming out the woodwork screaming about how he's the WORST and won't he think of the FANS!?

like damn he can't have a girlfriend without being harassed, he can't travel without being harassed, he can't like or not like social media posts without being harassed, he can't post a fucking MEME without being harassed, he can't take a vacation or cut his hair or hold someone's hand or just live his life without being blamed for some bullshit or another. but yeah, okay, 'when will Luke Newton come back?' as if it isn't your fault he's AWOL now

[infiniteglitterfall]

OMG, COULD EVERYONE PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY BELIEVING AND REPEATING DISINFORMATION?!

Sorry, I just. Was just on Twitter, and I snapped.

I literally haven't seen one true statement about Israel on social media in MONTHS.

It's gotten to the point that I'm seriously considering starting a sideblog fact-checking all of it.

PLEASE STOP BEING GARFIELD I AM BEGGING ALL OF YOU

BE NERMAL FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

I've written at least one really long post about fact-checking things before. I have another saved as a draft somewhere.

But all you really have to do at this point is GO LOOK AT AN ACTUAL NEWS SOURCE.

What do I mean by an Actual News Source?

An actual news source will tell you where it's getting its information.

Basically: Wikipedia rules apply at all times. Citation. Fucking. Needed.

Except with news articles, I don't mean a detailed footnote.

I mean, if they say, "Rosco Flubberish reported seeing a pig fly across Whatever Place. 'It was a flying pig,' he said," they're fine.

If they say, "Sources close to the President reported that the Department of Farmland Creatures launched a pig into the air this afternoon," they're fine.

If they say, "There have also been reports that pigs flew," they are purely making shit up.

Just check CNN or something. CNN checks their shit, and they're very quick on the draw.

NBC has been very reliable too, in my experience. So have ABC, Newsweek, the Jerusalem Post, the Guardian, the New York Times, the AP, PBS, the Washington Post, and Reuters.

You can break through most paywalls by putting archive.is or 12ft.io before the https:// of the URL. Or just go to either of those sites and paste the URL in the box.

Nobody is perfect. I've seen some articles from all of the above that were accurate, but left things out that I personally thought were important.

Journalists are humans, humans fuck up.

(Also, NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO OPINION PIECES ON ANY TOPIC. Opinion pieces are exactly that: opinions. They don't seem to be fact-checked anywhere, as far as I can tell. They range from super-accurate and informative to complete nonsense.)

(Surprisingly unreliable sources in my experience: Democracy Now, Jacobin, Workers World Party. The latter two act like news sites but are basically running nothing but opinion pieces; Democracy Now can do important deep dives, but I've also seen news coverage from it that was wildly misinformed in that same way.

On the flip side, Slate and the Atlantic are largely opinion -- the Atlantic more than Slate, maybe -- but they often have really well-researched analysis of political situations. Ditto Teen Vogue, and sometimes Vox.)

You don't have to read CNN or the NYT or whateverfor fun. You don't have to make it one of your news sources.

Just. Do a quick check on Google News before you assume anything is true, and then run it through a bullshit filter as described above.

You are being actively lied to, all the time. So am I. We all are.

And people will believe and repeat literally anything that sounds about right.

That's just human nature.

That is WHY none of us are immune to propaganda.

if you want my personal shortlist of Bad Sources, as in Sources That Consistently Publish Absolute Falsehoods:

Any and all state-owned or state-controlled media. For example:

Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government, and so are a bunch of other news sites.

Mehr News, the Tehran Times, Al-Quds TV, and Al-Alam are owned by the dictatorship of Iran.

Oops. Looks like every form of broadcast Iranian news media is owned by the dictatorship of Iran, which has a monopoly.

Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, Palestinian News and Info Agency, and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida are owned by the government of Palestine (the Palestinian Authority)

Al-Aqsa TV and Felesteen are owned by Hamas.

TASS / Russia News Agency, Russia Today, and a fuckton of others are owned by the Russian government.

State Media Monitor seems to do a pretty great job of tracking and listing these things. Check out your own country there!

I specifically listed those ones because some of them (especially Al Jazeera, Mehr News, and TASS) are sites I've seen come up frequently on Tumblr, or in my attempts to fact-check what people are saying here and on Twitter. The rest are just more examples from the same governments.

Al Jazeera deserves special notice because it's become a very popular leftist news source. Believe me, I used to read it all the time too.

It can be reliable and accurate sometimes. But:

It consistently tweets things that are unsourced, never appear anywhere else, and that would be big news you'd expect it to follow up on if they were true. It seems to be following a strategy of "tweet every rumor you hear in case it's true, so you can get the scoop."

It also does this with its liveblogs of the war. And ALL its coverage of the war at this point is liveblogs. So things that are verifiably true will run right next to things that are complete hearsay, but are too long to just tweet.

This is especially dangerous because as far as I can tell, Al Jazeera doesn't delete anything that turns out to be false.

I've also seen regular news articles in Al Jazeera, on multiple topics, that veer from Absolutely True Statements to Wildly Exaggerated Numbers and Speculation. Stuff you wouldn't expect a source on, like statistics or descriptions. And there's no way to tell the difference unless you already know a topic really well, or are fact-checking them while you read.

One especially terrible example, from Gazan activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib:

Al Jazeera has never posted or published a correction.

Alkhatib has also blamed it for destabilizing the region, although he's exaggerating about it being Hamas's official propaganda outlet:

TL;DR: If you see a Tumblr post making any kind of factual news statement without a link, at this point you need to assume it is absolutely not true. And either scroll on past, or go check Google News.

If there IS a link, you need to click through to see what it's from and what it actually says.

(Honestly, you need to do that with Wikipedia too. I've repeatedly clicked through on citations that absolutely did not say what the article implied they did.)

And pro tip: on mobile, you can just smack a button to sort Google's news results by most recent, and it helps A LOT. There's gotta be a way to do the same on desktop, but if there is, it's not immediately visible, which sucks.