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…

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    92·
    8 months ago

    I have used their methodology and worked through it. I find no fault with it.

    So then, It should be simple for you to tell us what rate of error is acceptable to still qualify as “factually consistent”.

    This is like giving. Recipe without measures, or a “how to build a shed” guide without describing how to build the pad it sits on.

    And finally, you’re the one who makes claims that there is some problem with their methodology, yet you have not demonstrated that at all.

    I haven’t? Huh. Interesting. So all those “rigorously defined criteria”, those are public? We know how they’re actually evaluated?

    We know what error rate is “Factually Consistent”, we know how they treat “misleading” tags or “misrepresentation” tags in their factual rating?

    I mean in my looking for an example where they clearly do not have a consistent methodology, I found it the first place I looked. (Okay, so I knew VOA news and Al Jazeera are both state owned propaganda outlets.)

    They’re both inherently biased. Yet one is “least biased” just because its owners happen to the us gov? Oh look. Here’s a third gov-owned propaganda outlet. Gee, what makes VOa special?

    Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

    No but the open discourse here and in similar communities is. Me blocking it just hides it from me. MBFC is being used, in part, to evaluate sources for articles.

    It’s a third party, private-interest group whose methods aren’t clear and self-evidently inconsistently applied.

    Even if they were demonstrably always right… that’s a problem, because sometimes the best source/news agency to talk about a given issue sucks.

    Sometimes the discussion is about awareness of how shitty “that rag” is.