Gabbard is reportedly moving the NIC from the CIA to her own office in order to “directly hold accountable any improper action and politicization of intelligence,” per Fox News.
Oh, the irony. There is so much irony, it hurts.
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
390 points (99.2% liked)
politics
23500 readers
2838 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Every accusation a confession.
It's not even irony, it's just willful projection at this point. And it works.
Serious question. But where do I find unfucked sources of news? Like I use to be able to take things like the NIHS, CDC seriously but can’t anymore. Government is pretty much syncopating towards the executive branch.
I am more or less looking for sources of news that is in their interest to report the facts as accurately as possible.
Europe, maybe?
European News Agencies are a lot more unbiased than american ones I believe. BBC for example
The Guardian has been great
Be careful there too. Daily mail for example isn't a great source.
Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were by no means unbias (particularly Kuenssberg) and they were both previous BBC Political Editors:
The BBC were also found to be bias during the Scottish independence referendum:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report/
And they've had journalists call out pro-Israel bias:
In November 2024, 230 members of the media industry including 101 anonymous BBC staff wrote a letter to Tim Davie accusing the BBC of providing favourable coverage towards Israel and failing its own editorial standards by lacking "consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
The BBC are a giant government funded media company, they know how to present a good image of themselves and have years of good publicity and marketing to solidify that image. But be under no illusion that they are unbias. They push political agendas as much as any American private news organisation, just with more subtlety and an air of professionalism and officialdom to more legitimise their stance.
That's not to say they don't do good journalism or can't be used as a credible source at times. But just to remember that they too are bias and have masters who push agendas.
Edit: to add more context:
Well yes, there is no such thing as an unbiased news agency. That doesn't exist. But the bbc is in no way comparable to American News such as cnn and fox news
Did you read any of my sources?
The BBC doesn't outright say red is blue, because they're not idiots and their target audience aren't idiots, but to state they're not comparable flies in the face of reason. They have shown on multiple occasions to push agendas, to the point that the criticism page on Wikipedia is huge. They are not the bastion of good journalism that they're held up to be by the general public.
The Guardian has it's flaws too of course but that is a far far better source than the BBC. It doesn't claim to be unbias, it doesn't lie to you that you'll hear fair and even coverage from "both sides", it doesn't give preferential treatment to the ruling party in government because of fears its funding will be removed.
Edit: What's scarier? An obvious bias source screaming nonsense 24/7 or a supposed unbias source subtly distorting facts when it suits them? Which will have more influence on public perception? Which is a better propaganda machine?
Well it's already proven the biased source yelling at you 24/7 is the better propaganda machine.
Proven? Is it? Care to provide some sources or argument beyond just an assertion? An administration does not an empire make.
It's intriguing that posts with references get downvoted but posts without get upvoted. Great critical thinking Lemmy users 👍
gestures broadly at the usa
gestures broadly at the UK...
Unbias**-ed**
Why do so many people conjugate this verb incorrectly?
Because English is an arse of a language and I am a dumb dumb 🙃
A dumb dumb capable of providing credible sources though, which is funny considering the downvotes and the context of this thread. Maybe y'all aren't as different from Gabbard as you think...
I find the AP to be the most level headed source most of the time. No place is infallible
The way I see it is no label is trustworthy or ever has been, simply look at the sources and compare articles on the same subject.
where do I find unfucked sources of news?
Look towards the news sources that Trump is trying to shut down.
Or look to international news sources that aren't American owned.
Zero, everything is being controlled because that's exactly what dictatorships do.
Little MS russian Kgb agent.
If you’re narking on people who are saying the intelligence doesn’t support those claims, as being “disloyal”, you’re not being a whistleblower.
You’re being a Nazis prick fucking over someone just doing their job to get ahead of the curve.
Agreed.
Unrelated, but it's narcing. Narc is short for narcotics officer.
Uhm.
So, while it is related to narcotics officers, it’s nark
If you look at the definition you provided, right there on the second line underneath the word, it says: "Less common spelling of narc"
And if you pull up the definition for narc: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narc
It contains all the different ways to use it in exactly the way I described in my first response to you :)
That is the correct spelling of it. Nark might be acceptable by webster's standards as a less common alternative, but it's not how that word was spelled or used until people started colloquially mis-spelling it. That is what merriam-Webster's does, they keep up with language as it evolves.
But to be clear, Nark is not the canon spelling for this. Narc is. Nark is a misspelling that became colloquially accepted. That does not make it the correct spelling 🙂
That is what merriam-Webster’s does, they keep up with language as it evolves.
Read that again.
But to be clear, Nark is not the canon spelling for this. Narc is. Nark is a misspelling that became colloquially accepted. That does not make it the correct spelling 🙂
There are many hundreds of regional variations on how we use language, and if you want to go broad enough, spell words. (Center, Centre. Color, Colour. Defense, Defence.) If one were to somehow manage to catalogue everything in such fine detail, one's use of language would likely be able to be traced down to what highschool clique one belonged. Or cliques. For those of us that have moved to places that have moved... it might even be able to show that transition and place it in a time frame.
Further, it's slang. There is always some variation on slang; and correcting someone's spelling over informal... is asinine. you might have a point, if I were writing for a doctoral thesis where anything but formal, technical language is to be abhorred. But if this were a doctoral thesis, it would be just as innapropriate to use narc- because it is slang.
Next you're going to be explaining how it's "y'all" and not "ya'll" or " 'yall" or "yall" or even "youse all"
now go back to that first bit I quote and explain to me how language can possibly have a canon, particularly in informal, casual usage.
This is a waste of time for us both it seems. Allow me to recap.
I was making a response to clarify that that was not the correct/common spelling people would associate with the term in the context you tried to use it in. Then you posted a response that literally proved my point. Then I pointed that out with screenshots and links. Now you're deep into this trying to double down on a broken argument for something that really doesn't matter man.
You don't want to learn something you (almost certainly) weren't aware of before this exchange. That's fair. That's your bag to carry, not mine. It's not my job to force you agree with very minor misuses of esoteric bits of language that I happen to know a fair bit about and can (and have) backed up.
Nobody really cares, and I really should take my own advice here and stop responding, so I probably will after this.
I'm not interested in trying to sort through your hangups with a free therapy session. 🙂
Good luck.
Gotta make sure Putin gets what he paid for
Good Russian assets protect their Russian leaders bought and paid for Russian puppets!!
Critics warned the firings suggest intelligence is being shaped to suit political agendas, not facts.
Ah, so just like they live the rest of their reality then? Might be the first thing they’re consistent about!
You mean to daddy you go now
No surprise, Gabbard has been accused of being a Russian Asset for over a decade already.
I'd ask how dumb is she, but that is just asking the obvious.
If you don't know that creating yes men will undermine you due to a lack of facts, you deserve everything you will get
Putin: How long would it take to seize Kyiv? Can we do it in three days?
YES MAN: THREE DAYS SIR! YES SIR!
Prerequisites for getting a job in the US Government:
- Don't speak out against Trump or his regime in any way
That's it