Francesca Albanese on her five-day trip that exposed Germany's harsh deviation from democratic values and shrinking landscape for freedom of expression.
What the heck do you mean “not the best source” the source is literally Francesca Albanese herself; she’s talking about her own experiences. Also MBFC and similar sites have very little reason to believe them on their own merit; MBFC itself admits Zeteo has failed no fact checks in the last five years. Their rating is apparently due to “one-sided reporting” and “a lack of opposing viewpoints” which literally has nothing to do with factuality. If you made your comment in good faith, know it makes no sense whatsoever.
Or what? People might think that Fransesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories who authored this article, talking about how the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories was treated in Germany, is a credible report when it …what, isn’t? Because Bloomberg said that some substacks are not credible? Like, are you serious here or are you just trolling?
Should I be impressed by your with your " Or What?" remark or something. Why are you so happy to use her charged and enticing opinion, which you also seem to carry, on this forum, but become so emotional engaged and are asking me if I’m trolling, for just trying to fact check an opinion piece ? Please, be real, I don’t get your hostile reaction.
You keep referring to Albanese’s piece as “just her opinion” because it’s written in the first person but that’s not an accurate or meaningful distinction. A first-person account from a UN Special Rapporteur describing how she was treated by a member state is not mere "opinion,” it is testimony. Testimony is a form of evidence. It can be corroborated, challenged, or contextualized but it’s not dismissed simply because it’s personal.
If you want to argue that her account is factually wrong or incomplete, make your case on the merits. Be specific. What exactly is she missing out or lying about? Receipts. But just calling it “opinion” doesn’t do that work. Her claims about how German authorities responded to her visit are either true or they aren’t. Multiple independent reports already confirm similar incidents in Germany involving restrictions on pro-Palestinian expression, which means her testimony is at minimum credible enough to merit engagement, not automatic dismissal.
So no, this isn’t about being “emotional” or “biased.” It’s about recognizing that firsthand testimony from an official acting in their mandate is itself a source of public record, and treating it accordingly.
Apart from the controversies surrounding her person, the post is a substack.com publication.https://substack.com/@teamzeteo
According to mediabiasfactcheck, All sides and bloomberg not the best source.
What the heck do you mean “not the best source” the source is literally Francesca Albanese herself; she’s talking about her own experiences. Also MBFC and similar sites have very little reason to believe them on their own merit; MBFC itself admits Zeteo has failed no fact checks in the last five years. Their rating is apparently due to “one-sided reporting” and “a lack of opposing viewpoints” which literally has nothing to do with factuality. If you made your comment in good faith, know it makes no sense whatsoever.
Exactly, you are answering your own question. This is not news, it’s just HER experience. At best it’s an opinion piece and should be marked as such.
Or what? People might think that Fransesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories who authored this article, talking about how the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories was treated in Germany, is a credible report when it …what, isn’t? Because Bloomberg said that some substacks are not credible? Like, are you serious here or are you just trolling?
Should I be impressed by your with your " Or What?" remark or something. Why are you so happy to use her charged and enticing opinion, which you also seem to carry, on this forum, but become so emotional engaged and are asking me if I’m trolling, for just trying to fact check an opinion piece ? Please, be real, I don’t get your hostile reaction.
You keep referring to Albanese’s piece as “just her opinion” because it’s written in the first person but that’s not an accurate or meaningful distinction. A first-person account from a UN Special Rapporteur describing how she was treated by a member state is not mere "opinion,” it is testimony. Testimony is a form of evidence. It can be corroborated, challenged, or contextualized but it’s not dismissed simply because it’s personal.
If you want to argue that her account is factually wrong or incomplete, make your case on the merits. Be specific. What exactly is she missing out or lying about? Receipts. But just calling it “opinion” doesn’t do that work. Her claims about how German authorities responded to her visit are either true or they aren’t. Multiple independent reports already confirm similar incidents in Germany involving restrictions on pro-Palestinian expression, which means her testimony is at minimum credible enough to merit engagement, not automatic dismissal.
So no, this isn’t about being “emotional” or “biased.” It’s about recognizing that firsthand testimony from an official acting in their mandate is itself a source of public record, and treating it accordingly.
Lol, talk of a desperate attempt to discredit Zeteo.