It pops up all the time, it’s a waste of time and I’m sure it has been used countless of times to discard some piece of information. It doesn’t add up anything productive to the comments, people who comment don’t even say anything they actually think they just “did you know that MBFC says this so it has to be truth?” I could go on but I think you get the idea.

  • ZWQbpkzl [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    MBFC is like 100% vibes masquarading as actual data. If we had some objective measure of a news source, I would welcome it, but that’s a fantasy.

    • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yeah, it’s a tough problem to solve but I don’t think for it’s a terrible source for getting a feel when someone drops a link from an institution you’ve never heard of. No one really has the time to fact check every article or explore every institution. Agreed the website, and concept, has more than a few flaws

      • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 hours ago

        No one really has the time to fact check every article or explore every institution.

        Way to admit that you let yourself to be propagandized. You should always read news critically. It’s easier to assume that everything is trying to push something, than to rely on a fancy graph some random dipshit on the internet created and then read it uncritically

        • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          What a way to admit you’re not realistic about the amount of time you have and how long things take

          I never said I didn’t read things critically. That not fact checking which takes time beyond noticing bias and logical issues

          • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            55 minutes ago

            What a way to admit you’re not realistic about the amount of time you have and how long things take

            I never said I didn’t read things critically.

            The contradiction is so glaring that I’m not sure if you read what you write as you heavily imply it

      • ZWQbpkzl [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 hours ago

        If it just ranked an outlets political opinion as left, right or center: no one would really be upset. It’s their effort to rank by credibility, and labeling centrisim as “unbiased” is fundamentally asinine; not “a few flaws”.

        • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          48 minutes ago

          There are definitely more axis that could be added but the center isn’t unbiased. The left and right tend to be pretty biased. Plenty in the center is too. Where are you seeing the center labeled as unbiased?

          • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 minutes ago

            The word “center” implies that it’s less biased/unbiased to the majority of people. It’s what average people see as a “safe” source and allows them to read it uncritically. Media literacy is not as widespread as you think it as, as demonstrated with your handling of this subject. Why are you so obtuse about it?