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…

  • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    984 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.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        154 months ago

        I think the bigger problem with MBFC is they don’t have a center category. Until they get one they are forcing themselves to present all news as biased one way or the other. Leaving no room for news organizations that are highly objective.

    • @glizzard@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      Same reason sites like Ground News also upset me. Like “yeah sure I totally needed to read that HUNTER BIDEN is absolutely the reason the Democrats are evil totally makes sense oh yeah”, like nah sometimes we can just say these people are massive hypocrites and their opinions and news are literally not factual or useful or important

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        74 months ago

        I’m not going to be surprised when we find out MBFC and Ground News were actually info ops from corporations.

        • @glizzard@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          94 months ago

          I’m not going to go that far — they’re just poor implementations of things we all want. When GN was created there was significant pushes from so many other companies to create their best little aggregators and summarizers. I’ve always felt it should be more possible to actually “ground” sources and journalists to the actual truth, than whatever these people deem as center. It’s ironic to call it grounded when its foundation is a political landscape mired in lies and grandiosity.

    • @otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      -64 months ago

      I wouldn’t call it bad information. As a non-American, I just read it as “American left”.

      “Centre-left” combined with “Factual Reporting” basically means “grounded in reality”, lol

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The problem is many people aren’t tuned into political ideology. The second they see left or right they sort it by their internal bias. So it’s whitewashing a lot of conservative European sources. It’s also rating American far right positions as center right, so absolutely whitewashing them, even for someone who understands MBFC is an American site with American prejudices.

        Honestly I’m surprised they’ve lasted 8 years without this getting called out, it should fairly well jump out at anyone who has studied politics.

        • @otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          04 months ago

          I’d be happy if someone wanted to make a better site that had better answers and a more international scale. We don’t have it, though

            • @otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              04 months ago

              I don’t think it’s bad information. It’s information that needs to be taken in with an understanding of its source…like most information.

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                04 months ago

                That’s not how that works. People stop at the labels. If you want to change that then go after the public education system. That’s just like telling people to watch Fox News with an understanding of its bias. It doesn’t work. And as pointed out elsewhere, MBFC isn’t operating objectively. It whitewashes extreme conservative publications while listing organizations like AP News as biased. It doesn’t label American and international sources differently and it doesn’t tell you it’s labeling everything with their own concept of the American political environment.

                For a supposedly objective organization it sure isn’t interested in self reflection.

                • @otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  04 months ago

                  Are you trying to tell me that it’s a problem to suggest people use critical thinking with the results of MBFCbot in addition to the post, and instead the solution is to suggest there should be no bot and people should use critical thinking skills for the post itself?

                  We already know how many people stop at the headlines.

                  As well, you seem to be focusing on the bias component. I think the reliability/fact-checking component is much more important.

                  • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    04 months ago

                    Which is weird because with 3 failed results in 2020 and 1 in 2022 Guardian got a mixed rating. While the New York Times gets a high rating with 3 failed fact checks.

                    I can smell the objectivity from here.

                    And yeah it’s rather they use whatever critical thinking they’re going to use on the source itself rather than have a bot claiming to do it for them. That wouldn’t be an issue though if it was actually objective. But it’s not. It’s a lie. So now you’re asking people to use critical thinking skills twice instead of once, and they have to get over the hurdle of realizing the officially sponsored MBFC bot is itself misinformation.

    • @Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -84 months ago

      The Ayn Rand Institute actually is center right. They promote strictly free market capitalism, of the laissez-faire variety. This is distinct from any sort of ethno/religious-nationalist position you’d find on what we’d call the far right, espoused by groups like Praeger.

      Regarding the newspapers, if they tend to endorse dems in elections, it’d be difficult to argue that they don’t tend to editorially lean at least slightly left.

      Note, a lean does not make something misinformation. If someone thinks that center-left means leftist propaganda, that is their mistake in thinking. That does not mean a bias rating service should recategorize everything to fit a left-is-center perspective, failing to take into account wherever the current national overton window happens to sit.

      We should want analysis to be from the perspective of a typical fast food eating, reality tv watching, not-super-engaged American if we can manage that, so we can see the breadth of American perspectives in relation to each other. Not some activist-driven wish to reframe America to fit our own perspectives on the truth, regardless of how we may feel about the current sociopolitical environment. Otherwise we risk simply reinforcing our own media bubbles and steadily weakening our own ability to come up with arguments our opposition may potentially find convincing.

      Note, it’s important to remember that center does not necessarily mean good. It just means center-for-America. In our current situation, center is not a very good place to be at all, imo at least. I mean, you’re halfway to Donald Trump if you’re in the center. Not good.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        224 months ago

        The libertarian, “drown the government in the bathtub” group are centrists now?

        Are you serious? Social issues aren’t the only thing you can swing left and right on. This is a massive pro corporate blindspot if MBFC continues that as a trend.

        Nobody is saying lean makes something misinformation. We’re saying the way the categories are used deceives, “a typical fast food eating, reality tv watching, not-super-engaged American” into believing good objective sources are running biased articles.

        And the American left is the center in the rest of the world. Playing into the American idea of centrism only makes the project biased, not some high minded goal. That’s some of that good exceptionalism propaganda.

        And reframing things to fit our own perspective? From the person defending the end of the federal government as a centrist position.

        You put a lot of high minded stuff in there but it comes down to American Exceptionalism trying to force its views on the rest of the world and a shit take on enlightened centrism. The facts on the ground are clear. MBFC plays favorites for conservatives.

        • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 months ago

          The libertarian, “drown the government in the bathtub” group are centrists now?

          American centrist. That’s like 3/4 right :-p

          The “laissez-faire” part got me. When anyone leaves gov and especially biz to do their thing without steering and criticism, then people are gonna suffer to make someone some shillings.

        • @Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -64 months ago

          No, they’re center-right. The center right still believes in representation and voting, where the far right is an authoritarian movement. This is an important distinction.

          So, an editorial slant and objective, fact-based reporting are two different things. Your bias comes in with things like article selection, what you are and are not reporting. You can be strongly biased, but still do objective, fact-based reporting. This is why these are two separate categories. This is not a problem, and both of these independent categories most definitely deserve to be reported independently of each other.

          It has nothing to do with exceptionalism. It has to do with performing measurements that are calibrated to the local environment. Someone pointed out that it makes less sense for world news, but for US news and politics communities it is definitely useful.

          When did I say the end of the federal government is a centrist position?

          You’re a very dishonest arguer. This has nothing to do with any form of American superiority. Simply discussion of American affairs from a perspective calibrated to American people. Saying that this has usefulness is not saying it is superior or exceptional, those are things you, not I, are saying.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            You absolutely do not have to be authoritarian to be far right. And the Ayn Rand Institute is libertarian. Their goal is to effectively end all governance in favor of corporations. So yes you are defending that.

            And someone like MBFC presenting that as a centrist position of any kind is a giant problem.

            You say I’m dishonest but you keep saying obvious things but then slipping in ridiculous stuff. Like saying MBFC should be more conservative because it’s American. But then ignoring that it rates international papers.

            Is Al Jazeera doing endorsements now? BBC? Whose the British government backing?

            You cannot have this both ways. It cannot be an American scale, available globally, rating globally.

            • @Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -64 months ago

              No, libertarians advocate for small government, not no government. Someone still has to provide for the common defense, uphold laws, things like that. And far right is always authoritarian in some way, shape or form. I cannot think of a single government in history we would describe as far right that was not authoritarian. Also, there is a difference between seeking accurate classification of something from a certain perspective and defending it. You are not very accurate at describing things, including my arguments. Again, center does not equal good. Center just means center, and is often bad.

              It does not matter if it rates international sources or not, if doing so for an American audience as an American organization, it should do so from an American perspective. There is nothing wrong with explaining to Americans how international sources fit into their established worldview.

              Note, I never said MBFC should be more conservative. If anything they should be shifting slightly leftward as Trump’s popularity wanes, to track with the attitudes of the country. Not a lot though, the race is still close to even.

              I don’t understand what you’re getting at with AJ and BBC endorsements, can you elaborate?

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                54 months ago

                No. Small government sounds nice but it’s only ever meant two things. Privatization or deregulation and strict social laws. Depends on whose saying it. And libertarians are in the privatization group. No matter how you cut it, that’s a radical position. The center is occupied by the regulated market and public services the vast majority of Americans enjoy and like.

                And it very much matters that it rates international sources. That makes it inaccurate by design everywhere outside the US. A disinfo op, meant to confuse people and whitewash conservative sources.

                They shouldn’t be tracking any one country. There are objective definitions for political ideology.

                • @Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -34 months ago

                  Well, I’m with you that libertarianism is an impractical and harmful idea, most right-leaning positions are. This does not make it far off from our center, though, when the vast majority of things we interact with in the US already are privatized. Many prisons and schools, businesses, land, etc etc. All in the private sector. So, an ideology that wants privatization of what little we have left, like say, the post office, is not a particularly extreme position for our culture. A far more extreme position would be wanting to do away with our voting and implementing an authoritarian government, as Trump seems to want.

                  So, there actually is no such thing as some grand, objective scale, no matter what scale you use, attitudes can shift over time and different positions can be adopted or dropped by different points on the scale due to changing technologies, attitudes and situations. The most important thing is that the scale is consistently applied, and provides useful information to the audience. I would argue that the most useful information is provided when the scale is balanced between the various positions that its audience is familiar with. So, again, since its an American organization doing work for an American audience, I think it behoves them to remain accurate to American perceptions.

                  It should not be trying to change anyone’s mind, or change how they view the world, simply scale everything that’s out there in a way its audience can find approachable and understandable. It’s not intended to be a reform mechanism, but a service to the culture as the culture exists. This is not whitewashing anymore than the US itself is very whitewashed. But again, it’s not MBFC’s job to fix us, that’s what education is for, not news media or fact/bias checking. It is not an education tool.

                  • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    54 months ago

                    So the points are made up and nothing matters. Got it.

                    But about libertarians, you haven’t begun to see what can be privatized. By the time they’re done you’ll be living in housing attached to your job. Unions will be legal but anyone attempting to form one will be murdered. You will be paid in company scrip. Hostile takeover will mean PMCs from your competitor actually taking the factories by force. And the list goes on. If you think libertarians are just after the post office then you’re not paying attention.

                    And again. You cannot just declare it’s a US only platform while rating international sources and making that available to international people. That is an international platform by default.

          • @Nibodhika@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            74 months ago

            Lots of what you’re saying smells like bullshit, but I would like to point one specific thing:

            The center right still believes in representation and voting, where the far right is an authoritarian movement. This is an important distinction.

            That’s not how it works, left/right and libertarian/authoritarian are different axis, because left/right are economic terms, they can be replaced by collectivism/individualism, just like how the other axis can be replaced by Anarchism/Totalitarism. You can have an extreme libertarian-right (e.g. anarcho-capitalist) or an extreme totalitarian-right (e.g. fascism), just like you can have an extreme libertarian-left (e.g. Kibutz) or extreme totalitarian-left (e.g. communism as implemented in the USSR).

            Also there’s a third axis of conservative/progressive. Just because you live in a country where conservatives and right wings are the same doesn’t mean everyone else does. For example in the two right wing examples I gave, one (anarcho-capitalist) is extremely progressive while the other (fascism) is extremely conservative.

            In the end you can think on the 3 axis according to different questions:

            • How should money be split? This is left/right or collectivism/individualism
            • Who should rule? This is libertarian/totalitarian or anarchism/totalitarism
            • How to deal with new ideas? This is conservative/progressive

            For example, taxes and where to use them are (in general ) a left/right debate, whereas security is (usually) a libertarian/totalitarian debate, and abortion, drugs and most things related to new ideas are (again, usually) conservative/progressive.

            • @Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -34 months ago

              Yes, that’s fair. I was trying to remain within the oversimplified standard US perspective on these things, which does boil all of that down to one, single axis, largely as a result of our two party system. I agree it is a poor and inaccurate method though.

      • AwesomeLowlander
        link
        fedilink
        134 months ago

        We should want analysis to be from the perspective of a typical fast food eating, reality tv watching, not-super-engaged American

        Why? Lemmy is a worldwide site.

        • @Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -54 months ago

          Hm, you do have a good point. For the US news and US politics subs it’s important, but far less important for a global news community.