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…

  • @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.

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

                Actually yes, the points are all made up. This is just how human society works. We were not given these ideas by god or something, set into some type of mystical stone. We came up with them all, and we can change them any time we feel like it. It definitely matters though.

                I think you read too much science fiction. Company housing actually used to be a thing in the US, but corporate PMCs invading each others factories is unlikely any time this century.

                I didn’t say it was a US only platform, again, you are saying things I am not saying. What I am saying is that it is a US service, not US-only, simply by-and-for the US and thus from a US perspective. Other people are free to use it or not use it as they see fit.

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

                  So you’re inviting people to use it and get information you admit is out of alignment. Got it.

                  And yes all of that happened in the 20th century except the PMCs. But once you destroy government, what’s going to stop them? Their natural good will? No you refuted that theory. (“We were not given these ideas by god or something,”)

                  I just have to ask, do you work for MBFC? Because you are bending over backwards to defend its ratings.

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

                    It is not out of alignment with the US in the slightest.

                    There you go again with destroying the government, despite that being nowhere in the platform. And when did companies pay with “private scripp” instead of US dollars?

                    No, I just don’t like misinformation. You very much do, with your grossly exaggerated claims. I am very unsurprised that any sort of fact checking service deeply bothers you.

    • @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.