He was bragging about the "transparency" of the zelensky meeting. Why not make these calls public?
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
121 points (97.6% liked)
News
27476 readers
4205 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s so the republicans/conservatives feel validated by the fact there is a corruption in the government…… the rest of us are just waiting for them to catch onto the fact it’s primarily their own party that is corrupt. Just gotta be patient though as they struggle to grasp these mind of concepts quickly.
Their ignorance is entirely wilful. They'll still be blaming Biden when they have to hack off their own foot because of the diabeetus.
Just being patient is the biggest issue our elected democrats always face.
Addicted to phone sex
On the receiving part
is newsweek considered a serious source? even this objectively right seeming headline is kind of a nothingburger, isnt it?
sorry for derailing. if thats not tolerated, i will stop
Are you thinking of NewsMax or whatever? Newsweek AFAIK is a run-of-the-mill average news source - no NYT but certainly not NY Post.
Newsveek is no longer considered a reliable source. It was reliable until 2013.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
That is fair.
IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis.
Lines up with the "nothingburger' headline. Probably case-by-case is appropriate. Thanks for showing me that!
Oh wow, theres more to this discussion, nicely useful!
says:
evaluate on case-by-case basis
So its kind of in a grey zone, not reliable doesnt mean bad source in that case. Useful link, altough wikipedia is also a grey zone in the sense that its information based on open source (everybody can edit it, and most liked proposals get through as I understand)
maybe as European im not too well versed in US sources and judged too harsh based on anecdotal experience. All the news Ive seen are always on the "nothing has been said" or "thats reaching" side.
my bad then
You’re on the nose with that, which is why ground.news is so vital especially now. You can read about the same story from multiple perspectives and often they’ll have a handy synopsis that has key info from all the writings.
Or for that matter, see through the flood and read about things that matter a lot more.
Well what ground news wants to do -critical evaluation and media literacy- is so vital.
But ground news deciding on what exact position on the spectrum a source is, seems to achieve the exact oposite: make people depentend in questioning and finding a variety of sources.
Nowadays everything needs to happen in an instant.
If theres a solution that only takes half a snap, that will be the only relevant choice for the mass. Thats why Im instantly asking, because just today I referred to this source to someone else as a might-be-bad example but instantly realized, I will have to ask this on the next situation (now)
Anyways thanks for the correction!
For the record I can't comment on this specific article - it may be a nothingburger. I just think Newsweek itself is not inherently problematic.
Thanks for the confirmation
Newsweek is kind of lowbrow today compared where it was maybe twenty years ago, IMHO, but I wouldn't call it a source of inaccurate information or anything.
What, no love letters?
I bet he couldn't even pay Melania to change his diapers these days..