A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I hadn't been aware of the collaboration with the radio station until I watched the show Evil (episode 12).
It's just a fun show, not political, but I'd recommend watching that episode. Not that it goes into great detail, but the acting and writing make it feel so much more understandable, how a radio host calling minorities cockroaches can really matter. Stochastic terrorism and all that.
I'm just getting into that show. I'd say it's a lot more political (in a good way) than you give it credit for. And doesn't shy away from its criticisms of Catholicism.
Thinking more on it, I suppose you're right. A lot of the "politics" are specifically Church politics, but not all of them.
Foreign Policy – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: High
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 21:41:42 UTC
However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as "generally unreliable", recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view.
When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset's ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect.”
I was trying to find the criticism you cited, but it must be buried somewhere under a mountain of praise. Could you explain what the nature of their complaint is? I’m out of the loop.
Haha, I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. You’ll notice both MBFC and Ad Fontes were given that status primarily due to being Self-Published. However I wouldn’t consider MBFC or Ad Fontes to be the be-all and end-all perfectly authoritative source either.
I clicked your link. Not only is the quote you provided not actually present in your source, but the sentiment isn’t even there. The article is mostly about how reliable and consistent the website is.
Huh, that's so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:
It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.
So if those are considered fact-based, there's no need to delve further.
Yeah, no wonder it was removed - entirely without citation and low relevance. To be honest, the existing line “…been criticised for its methodology” is on shaky ground, I checked the citation and I would not characterise it as a critique:
“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”
That is the entirety of what the source says, it doesn’t go on to mention it more in later paragraphs, just that one sentence.
CNN’s own source for that claim is a single tweet with no reactions to it whatsoever, which doesn’t feel very iron-clad to me.
Considering the massive incentive for powerful companies and individuals to cast doubt on the veracity of media bias/fact check, it seems irresponsible to interpret the source in that way and to spread that claim as though it’s entirely watertight.
Can I ask, why did you even post your original reply? Did you do your own fact check in January, see that paragraph, and decide to share it to discourage people from trusting the fact-checker?