Here's an article about Israel's policy of "administrative detention" by which large numbers of Palestinians are held without trial or even charges for an AVERAGE of a year. "Before October 7, the number of Palestinians held by Israel under administrative detention was already at a 20-year high. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, there were 1,310 Palestinians imprisoned without charge or trial at the end of September, including at least 146 minors. Since then, Israel has dramatically increased its use of administrative detention, pushing the number of detainees to over 2,000 within the first four weeks of the war. (That’s out of a total of roughly 7,000 Palestinian prisoners.)" It's just taking hostages with a less offensive name.
Within the last day Israeli national security minister Ben Gvir made a social media post with a last line that translates to: "The death penalty for terrorists is the right solution to the incarceration problem, until then - glad that the government approved the proposal I brought." The incarceration problem he's referring to is a lack of space to hold all the prisoners/hostages Israel is taking, and he's advocating executions until more prison cells are built.
First, thanks for doing the work of checking sources for articles posted here, I believe you add value to the conversation.
This being said, I happen to disagree with you - here's why.
There seems to be a common misconception about bias and trustability.
The site you linked to has two ratings: factual reporting and bias.
Factual reporting is determined by how they do their jobs: do they check their facts and sources before they publish?
ABC news australia is voted 4/5 on that scale, which I'd say makes them pretty trustworthy - most of the time, they report accurate and verified information.
Bias is the way you choose the informations you report and how you comment on them. For exemple, while reporting the same information "billionaires are now x% richer than last year", a left biased paper could comment on how non billionaires are getting poorer and a right biased paper could list the billionaires and applaud their financial choices. As a strongly left biased person myself, I'll ignore the right biased paper nit because I think they're lying, but because I don't find their commentary relevant.
Everybody and every news source is biased, and it's okay. There is usually no neutrality possible when you do journalistic work, because your job is to provide context and commentary around the facts that you report.
IMO, bias is not a metric helpful to determine credibility, and I find it a little detrimental that the site you linked to has bias and fact checking displayed at the same place without providing a better differentation between the two.
On a side note, the pursuit of a fictionnal "journalistic neutrality" supposedly devoid of any bias has been and still is weaponized in the french news, where women, muslils or people or color are told they can't report on subjects that they know well because they are supposedly too close to the topic and wouldn't be able to stay neutral. While of course cishet white privileged men can report on those subjects because they are more "objective"...
