Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-30 18:32:52 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B65BEAC42E1AFDC0BB2DEC539F7F07453FDD484CE1F0BDA381F6688C5AF8693E
Participant Details

Original Note:

The NYT story has not been “thoroughly debunked”. A couple of its claims have been questioned, but no serious inaccuracies have been found. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/01/media/ny-times-stands-by-reporting-hamas/index.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1795295041717416379
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B65BEAC42E1AFDC0BB2DEC539F7F07453FDD484CE1F0BDA381F6688C5AF8693E
  • createdAtMillis - 1717093972885
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1795295041717416379B65BEAC42E1AFDC0BB2DEC539F7F07453FDD484CE1F0BDA381F6688C5AF8693E