I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion – let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it’s the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways…so really no difference).

What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…

  • tyler
    25·
    4 months ago

    Nobody in this comment section has provided a single instance of it being disinformation. But people sure are claiming a lot of shit without backing up it one bit. I’m inclined to believe that they’re most likely far right trolls who disagree with their favorite news outlets getting labeled something.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      31·
      4 months ago

      MBFC itself is biased and unreliable. On purpose or not it’s system has the effect of pushing the GOP narrative that mainstream news is all leftist propaganda while right wing propaganda is normal. It does this by not having a center category and by misusing the center lean categories it does have.

      So for example national papers with recognized excellence in objective reporting are all center left. And then on center right, you have stuff like the Ayn Rand Institute. Which is literally a lobbying organization.

      Not having an alternative isn’t an excuse to keep using something that provides bad information.

      So you missed this comment then? And the ones where they point out any pro Palestinian source is rated badly?

      • tyler
        13·
        3 months ago

        There isn’t a single link or source for literally any of these claims in any of the comments. So yeah I’m still pretty sure it’s just people making shit up until they can back up a claim, even one.

          • tyler
            11·
            3 months ago

            Not if they don’t provide a link to the news source they’re talking about. So yeah, still no proof, source, nothing. Pretty clear it’s your bias at this point.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              11·
              3 months ago

              So you’re too lazy to check the cross reference of BBC and the Ayn Rand Institute on MBFC and too lazy to go to their websites and you want to blame me for not giving you the simplest links ever?

              Did you press F to doubt when they tried to teach you 1+1 in 1st grade too?

              • tyler
                11·
                3 months ago

                You make a claim, you source it. That’s how debates (and literally any science at all) work dumbass.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  No. You source stuff that’s not generally available. Academic papers aren’t out there sourcing the existence of the universe. Asking for easily available stuff to be sourced is a form of trolling.

                  • tyler
                    11·
                    3 months ago

                    It clearly isn’t easily available if you can’t even provide a single fucking instance of it now, is it? Sourcing what you’re fucking talking about is how debates work you fucking dickhead. This has nothing to do with a bibliography. It’s about putting a fucking link referencing the material you’re alluding to.