Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.đ
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
I wish people would stop linking to this crap, it is literally just what one individual American centrist thinks of sources. In his methodology he explicitly states centrist (from an American standpoint) sources are intrinsically more credible.
tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
on 29 Jul 2024 13:58
nextcollapse
Itâs a bot and this comment will be under every single submission here now. Check the pinned post.
Itâs easier to judge the credibility of one guy than a thousand guys.
To be fair, I donât much attention to it either, and you can always block the bot so that you donât see it. I already blocked that AI summary bot because I donât trust some random personâs LLM to be unbiased and truthful.
jordanlund@lemmy.world
on 29 Jul 2024 14:51
nextcollapse
If you have a better source of both bias and credibility with an API that lets us automate it, Iâm open!
Womble@lemmy.world
on 29 Jul 2024 15:16
nextcollapse
I dont. I dont even have a problem with using it to filter out the really terrible sources automatically. But anything further than that is placing too much trust in some guyâs opinion (IMO)
xmunk@sh.itjust.works
on 29 Jul 2024 16:31
collapse
If only you understood how computers dealt with timezones⌠youâd be amazed how much critical shit in the world ends up being run by âJust one guy we all sort of just trustâ.
Im aware of ntp, Iâve had to debug timezone errors before. But labeling which news sources are trustworthy and which arent is inherently politcal in a way timezones arent.
Deceptichum@quokk.au
on 29 Jul 2024 18:23
collapse
If you have a good source thatâs not biased, letâs see it?
Because if not, why automate introducing a bias.
jordanlund@lemmy.world
on 29 Jul 2024 18:31
collapse
MB/FC is a good source that is not biased.
Deceptichum@quokk.au
on 29 Jul 2024 18:52
collapse
It is so biased!
Have you ever looked at the reviews it gives papers? Like the actual reasoning? Itâs biased as fuck.
Timii@biglemmowski.win
on 29 Jul 2024 15:22
nextcollapse
Itâs not âone guyâ. Itâs him and a team of volunteers/contractors.
Doesnât make them perfect, but I defy you to find better for this use.
Buelldozer@lemmy.today
on 29 Jul 2024 19:10
collapse
You are claiming the MB/FC is âcrapâ and at least indirectly accusing it of bias or poor methodology. Since I have a subscription to Ground.News Iâm able to see how MB/FCs assessments compare against other outlets doing the same job such as Ad Fontes, Wikipedia, and others and MB/FC seems to be reasonably consistent with their peers.
So do you have any concrete examples of MB/FC getting it wrong or being wildly different than their peers?
Beryl@lemmy.world
on 29 Jul 2024 19:27
nextcollapse
Both Ground News and Media Bias are tuned to a very US-centric vision of what is left or right, which means that thanks to this right biased Overton window, anything they classify as left would probably be considered center in Europe. Unfortunately, said window is also slinding to the right in Europe under the influence of European right leaders calling anything left of center âfar-leftâ, see for example : Macron.
Buelldozer@lemmy.today
on 30 Jul 2024 19:20
collapse
Both Ground News and Media Bias are tuned to a very US-centric vision of what is left or right
Itâs a fair criticism but the idea that thereâs some Media Bias organization out there that CAN do the job is false. Everywhere in the world is very skewed from the rest of the world. Someone in Venezuela would likely not agree with a bias rating given by someone in the UK and they likely wouldnât agree with someone in India who would likely not agree with someone in China. What youâre basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldnât be given at all.
Unfortunately, said window is also slinding to the right in Europe under the influence of European right leaders calling anything left of center âfar-leftâ, see for example : Macron.
Excellent example. To an American Macron would be âFar Leftâ. To a Frenchie heâs âCenterâ. In China heâd likely be âRight or Far Rightâ.
This highlight the problem. NO Media Bias organization could ever possibly hope to encompass all of that, so the best thatâs possible is for the rating organization to clearly explain their viewpoint, methodology, and be consistent in their ratings. All of which I think MB/FC is doing acceptably well.
TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
on 29 Jul 2024 19:45
collapse
Wrote this over on the announcement post for this bot:
The website itself says itâs distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldnât be used in any world news communities.
Centrist Bias
The website follows the idea of âenlightened centrismâ since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.
Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria Iâd feel better if it was at least kept it itâs own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source itâs just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.
Questionable Fact Checking
Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.
âWikipediaâs editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.â
Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they arenât but as people can see there isnât a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check youâre explicitly choosing to align your âtruthâ with this websites biases.
Buelldozer@lemmy.today
on 30 Jul 2024 19:16
collapse
American Bias
Everywhere in the world is very skewed from the rest of the world. Someone in Venezuela would likely not agree with a bias rating given by someone in the UK and they likely wouldnât agree with someone in India who would likely not agree with someone in China. What youâre basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldnât be given at all.
Centrist Bias
I donât know why FAIR is being rated as âHighâ instead of âVery Highâ by MB/FC but I donât see this as some kind of overwhelming issue. The Intercept ranking has an explanation in the report and you should read it but it comes down to the fact that theyâre known to only cover certain stories, theyâre known to repress journalists, and theyâve been previously caught with writers that were making stuff up. Despite all of that theyâre still being rated âmostly factualâ, so again Iâm not seeing this as an overwhelming issue.
MB/FC does still rate ADL as âHighâ but itâs worth note that the Wikepedia re-date happened after MB/FCâs last review of the ADL. The next time that MB/FC re-rates the ADL itâs like to go down or get specific notes regarding the Palestinian Conflict.
I thank you for taking the time to reply. I did look at and consider your argument and your sources but at the end I find them to be unpersuasive. Thereâs no sign of serious problems, how MB/FC evaluates sources is clearly stated and appears to be consistently applied. I will watch the ADL ranking to see what, if anything happens, but a single example of something that needs a re-rank on a specific issue doesnât demonstrate a pattern. Finally thereâs isnât a single media bias checker on the planet that can be all things to all people at all times, itâs not possible, and since itâs not possible you really canât knock them for not being up to a literally impossible standard.
TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
on 30 Jul 2024 21:41
collapse
What youâre basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldnât be given at all.
What Iâm saying is that on a world news community we shouldnât be using a US based left/right. What that should be should be voted on by the community if the mods insist we need to have some sort of fact checker like this which I disagree is needed.
I donât know why FAIR is being rated as âHighâ instead of âVery Highâ by MB/FC but I donât see this as some kind of overwhelming issue. The Intercept ranking has an explanation in the report and you should read it but it comes down to the fact that theyâre known to only cover certain stories, theyâre known to repress journalists, and theyâve been previously caught with writers that were making stuff up. Despite all of that theyâre still being rated âmostly factualâ, so again Iâm not seeing this as an overwhelming issue.
The reason FAIR doesnât is because MB/FC downgrades sources if it (arbitrarily based on the US right skewed Overton window) decides a source is left/right bias even if there has never been a failed fact check. For The intercept it was literally 1 reporter and they retracted all bogus statements, I could see that being 2nd rating then.
Again the 3 sources I mentioned weâre literally the first 3 I checked, itâs not a small issue with MB/FC itâs the fact that the methodolgy downgrades the factual rating if the source isnât as centrist as the (effectively) 1 guy that runs the website wants the source to be. What number of incorrect ratings would make you decide this is a terrible checker? Cause with some time Iâm sure I could come up with any reasonable target given.
So the ADL is ranked the same as FAIR. Seems consistent. Youâre also overstating the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia only considers them unreliable on the Palestinian Conflict. The ADL is still perfectly fine (with them) for other things.
Didnât overstate I specifically mentioned twice what it was basing that off of. Also I donât see how that would be consistent when 1 source has never failed a fact check and the other has been deemed unreliable on both the Palestinian conflict and on anti-sentism. How should both of those be the same rating?
There probably isnât a fact checker out there thatâs going to be perfect and also free but that doesnât mean we shoehorn a crappy one in here without putting massive disclaimers clearly calling out the biases it has.
From LLM :
âThe Horseshoe Theory is a concept in political science and sociology that suggests that the far-left and far-right of the political spectrum have more in common than they do with the political centerâ
Similar definition here :
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
(you get my upvote đđ)
Lemmy. Ml gets big mad if you call them out for this
VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
on 29 Jul 2024 19:53
collapse
Itâs so funny seeing how unserious everyone is, ultra left attacking trains is such a common irony tâs almost like the universe can only house absurdity
threaded - newest
The Straits Times Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)
### The Straits Times is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. > Bias: Right-Center
> Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
> Country: Singapore
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-straits-times/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.straitstimes.com%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Ffrench-train-services-back-to-normal-after-sabotage
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.đ
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
I wish people would stop linking to this crap, it is literally just what one individual American centrist thinks of sources. In his methodology he explicitly states centrist (from an American standpoint) sources are intrinsically more credible.
Itâs a bot and this comment will be under every single submission here now. Check the pinned post.
I know its a bot, I still think its missleading to promote this one guyâs opinion like he is a font of truth.
Itâs easier to judge the credibility of one guy than a thousand guys.
To be fair, I donât much attention to it either, and you can always block the bot so that you donât see it. I already blocked that AI summary bot because I donât trust some random personâs LLM to be unbiased and truthful.
If you have a better source of both bias and credibility with an API that lets us automate it, Iâm open!
I dont. I dont even have a problem with using it to filter out the really terrible sources automatically. But anything further than that is placing too much trust in some guyâs opinion (IMO)
If only you understood how computers dealt with timezones⌠youâd be amazed how much critical shit in the world ends up being run by âJust one guy we all sort of just trustâ.
Im aware of ntp, Iâve had to debug timezone errors before. But labeling which news sources are trustworthy and which arent is inherently politcal in a way timezones arent.
If you have a good source thatâs not biased, letâs see it?
Because if not, why automate introducing a bias.
MB/FC is a good source that is not biased.
It is so biased!
Have you ever looked at the reviews it gives papers? Like the actual reasoning? Itâs biased as fuck.
Itâs not âone guyâ. Itâs him and a team of volunteers/contractors.
Doesnât make them perfect, but I defy you to find better for this use.
You are claiming the MB/FC is âcrapâ and at least indirectly accusing it of bias or poor methodology. Since I have a subscription to Ground.News Iâm able to see how MB/FCs assessments compare against other outlets doing the same job such as Ad Fontes, Wikipedia, and others and MB/FC seems to be reasonably consistent with their peers.
So do you have any concrete examples of MB/FC getting it wrong or being wildly different than their peers?
Both Ground News and Media Bias are tuned to a very US-centric vision of what is left or right, which means that thanks to this right biased Overton window, anything they classify as left would probably be considered center in Europe. Unfortunately, said window is also slinding to the right in Europe under the influence of European right leaders calling anything left of center âfar-leftâ, see for example : Macron.
Itâs a fair criticism but the idea that thereâs some Media Bias organization out there that CAN do the job is false. Everywhere in the world is very skewed from the rest of the world. Someone in Venezuela would likely not agree with a bias rating given by someone in the UK and they likely wouldnât agree with someone in India who would likely not agree with someone in China. What youâre basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldnât be given at all.
Excellent example. To an American Macron would be âFar Leftâ. To a Frenchie heâs âCenterâ. In China heâd likely be âRight or Far Rightâ.
This highlight the problem. NO Media Bias organization could ever possibly hope to encompass all of that, so the best thatâs possible is for the rating organization to clearly explain their viewpoint, methodology, and be consistent in their ratings. All of which I think MB/FC is doing acceptably well.
Wrote this over on the announcement post for this bot:
Just looking over the methodology itâs clear that it has itâs own biases:
American Bias
The website itself says itâs distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldnât be used in any world news communities.
Centrist Bias
The website follows the idea of âenlightened centrismâ since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.
Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.
The Intercept getting only a âmostly factualâ rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.
Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria Iâd feel better if it was at least kept it itâs own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source itâs just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.
Questionable Fact Checking
Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.
The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasnât found to fail any fact checks.
The ADL was found to be so unreliable on itâs reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.
âWikipediaâs editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.â
Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they arenât but as people can see there isnât a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check youâre explicitly choosing to align your âtruthâ with this websites biases.
Everywhere in the world is very skewed from the rest of the world. Someone in Venezuela would likely not agree with a bias rating given by someone in the UK and they likely wouldnât agree with someone in India who would likely not agree with someone in China. What youâre basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldnât be given at all.
I donât know why FAIR is being rated as âHighâ instead of âVery Highâ by MB/FC but I donât see this as some kind of overwhelming issue. The Intercept ranking has an explanation in the report and you should read it but it comes down to the fact that theyâre known to only cover certain stories, theyâre known to repress journalists, and theyâve been previously caught with writers that were making stuff up. Despite all of that theyâre still being rated âmostly factualâ, so again Iâm not seeing this as an overwhelming issue.
So the ADL is ranked the same as FAIR. Seems consistent. Youâre also overstating the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia only considers them unreliable on the Palestinian Conflict. The ADL is still perfectly fine (with them) for other things.
MB/FC does still rate ADL as âHighâ but itâs worth note that the Wikepedia re-date happened after MB/FCâs last review of the ADL. The next time that MB/FC re-rates the ADL itâs like to go down or get specific notes regarding the Palestinian Conflict.
I thank you for taking the time to reply. I did look at and consider your argument and your sources but at the end I find them to be unpersuasive. Thereâs no sign of serious problems, how MB/FC evaluates sources is clearly stated and appears to be consistently applied. I will watch the ADL ranking to see what, if anything happens, but a single example of something that needs a re-rank on a specific issue doesnât demonstrate a pattern. Finally thereâs isnât a single media bias checker on the planet that can be all things to all people at all times, itâs not possible, and since itâs not possible you really canât knock them for not being up to a literally impossible standard.
What Iâm saying is that on a world news community we shouldnât be using a US based left/right. What that should be should be voted on by the community if the mods insist we need to have some sort of fact checker like this which I disagree is needed.
The reason FAIR doesnât is because MB/FC downgrades sources if it (arbitrarily based on the US right skewed Overton window) decides a source is left/right bias even if there has never been a failed fact check. For The intercept it was literally 1 reporter and they retracted all bogus statements, I could see that being 2nd rating then.
Again the 3 sources I mentioned weâre literally the first 3 I checked, itâs not a small issue with MB/FC itâs the fact that the methodolgy downgrades the factual rating if the source isnât as centrist as the (effectively) 1 guy that runs the website wants the source to be. What number of incorrect ratings would make you decide this is a terrible checker? Cause with some time Iâm sure I could come up with any reasonable target given.
Didnât overstate I specifically mentioned twice what it was basing that off of. Also I donât see how that would be consistent when 1 source has never failed a fact check and the other has been deemed unreliable on both the Palestinian conflict and on anti-sentism. How should both of those be the same rating?
There probably isnât a fact checker out there thatâs going to be perfect and also free but that doesnât mean we shoehorn a crappy one in here without putting massive disclaimers clearly calling out the biases it has.
Horseshoe theory keeps on winning
From LLM :
âThe Horseshoe Theory is a concept in political science and sociology that suggests that the far-left and far-right of the political spectrum have more in common than they do with the political centerâ
Similar definition here : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
(you get my upvote đđ)
Lemmy. Ml gets big mad if you call them out for this
Itâs so funny seeing how unserious everyone is, ultra left attacking trains is such a common irony tâs almost like the universe can only house absurdity