this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
348 points (99.2% liked)

politics

23493 readers
2588 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired National Intelligence Council Acting Chair Mike Collins and Deputy Maria Langan-Riekhof after they contradicted Trump’s claims about the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

A declassified NIC report found no Maduro-directed effort behind TDA's U.S. activity, opposing Trump’s justification for suspending Venezuelan migrants’ due-process rights.

Whistleblowers accused the officials of undermining Trump. Gabbard is relocating the NIC from the CIA to her office.

Critics warned the firings suggest intelligence is being shaped to suit political agendas, not facts.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Good Russian assets protect their Russian leaders bought and paid for Russian puppets!!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 hours ago

Gotta make sure Putin gets what he paid for

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 hours ago

Little MS russian Kgb agent.

[–] [email protected] 106 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It's not even irony, it's just willful projection at this point. And it works.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 14 hours ago

Every accusation a confession.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 14 hours ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

I find the AP to be the most level headed source most of the time. No place is infallible

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

Zero, everything is being controlled because that's exactly what dictatorships do.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

European News Agencies are a lot more unbiased than american ones I believe. BBC for example

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Be careful there too. Daily mail for example isn't a great source.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 hours ago

The Guardian has been great

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 55 minutes ago) (2 children)

Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were by no means unbias (particularly Kuenssberg) and they were both previous BBC Political Editors:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24627111.laura-kuenssberg-worst-moments-boris-johnson-deleted-tweets/

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:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/apr/22/bbc-tells-pm-evan-davis-to-stop-hosting-heat-pump-podcast

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-doughty-labour-mp-s-jeremy-corbyn-onair-resignation-prearranged-by-the-bbc-a6801846.html

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Unbias**-ed**

Why do so many people conjugate this verb incorrectly?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

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...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Well it's already proven the biased source yelling at you 24/7 is the better propaganda machine.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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 👍

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

gestures broadly at the usa

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

gestures broadly at the UK...

[–] [email protected] 23 points 14 hours ago

Europe, maybe?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago

Agreed.

Unrelated, but it's narcing. Narc is short for narcotics officer.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 13 hours ago

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!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 14 hours ago

No surprise, Gabbard has been accused of being a Russian Asset for over a decade already.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 14 hours ago

You mean to daddy you go now