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.
Should have a standardised response to MBFC getting posted, like the one Davel posted.
But muh Media Bias/Fact Check says it checks out!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/
Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.
Van Zandt is some hobbyist who was in the right place at the right time: the “post-truth” moment of Clinton’s loss to Trump and the string of Russiagate conspiracy theories and Kellyanne Conway’s alternative facts and the Cambridge Analytica hysteria.
The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:
The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.
The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
I said “these kinds of graphs,” of which there are many https://duckduckgo.com/?q=media+bias+chart&iax=images&ia=images
But you’ve sparked an idea for an interesting project: use MBFC’s API to create one of these graphs from their own data. Doing a little googling, it seems that scripts and data dumps aren’t hard to come by.
I think armchair media analyst Dave M. Van Zandt is going on vibes. I don’t think he understands corporate & think tank media. Does he know who Walter Lippman or Edward Bernays were, or what the Council on Foreign Relations (“least biased” 🤡) is or made note of its prominent media members? Does he know about the Powell memorandum or the Trilateral Commission’s report, The Crisis of Democracy?
No results found for
site:mediabiasfactcheck.com "manufacturing consent".I’ve seen The Grayzone debunk the New York Times’ lies many times, and yet:
Also, in what universe is the neoliberal, anti-labor NYT center-left? And if the Grayzone in the ultraviolet territory, where does that leave the explicitly Communist Monthly Review, outside of MBFC’s Overton window? Surprise, it’s to the right of it:
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.
This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
Mbfc is just a score of how aligned with the empire propaganda machine an outlet is, nothing more. People who take it seriously should not be taken seriously themselves. If you need a site to tell you what kind of information you are able to see, regardless of you agreeing with the info or not, you should not be giving opinions online
Can you post a few real examples? Not sure I fully understand what youre aiming at.
Right now it sounds like youre trying to impliment censorship.
https://lemmy.ml/post/41019382/23036391
This happens every few days, all the time. Low effort comment with no scientific back up. Yes, I am trying to censor the neoliberal outlook from being presented as reality in this community.
Oh yea that sounds like AI propaganda bullshit.
Thanks for sharing, I havent actually seen any of these yet but would support a ban.
AFAIK most posts have a single source news disclaimer and stuff like that anyway so its redundant to begin with.
Those comments sound great. Why are they an issue? Many if the best comments are basically data not personal point of view
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.
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
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
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
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
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”.
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?
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?
The fact that you think its a good idea shows that you believe, even if you are not aware, that your positions are neutral when they’re not. If you are not investigating your own bias why should we bother with comments telling you what is or isn’t biased? All that’s signaling to you is if something is “good” or “bad” because your position is “good” and not biased at all.
I, and others with my perspective, understand that everything has a bias, and you need to be able to read something critically to find that bias. These bias checking sites are not doing that, they are only looking to ensure people who share your view, the natural or default perspective, or the neoliberal perspective, do not read the “wrong” content.
Interesting comment
I have my biases, and I struggle reading most news sources because of theirs. Reading critically is very important and fact checks can help educate people on how to do that. Hopefully without picking up their biases.
So, people should waste time reading a source just because someone has a lot of energy flooding the zone so they can see what the real biases are?
Nothing you’ve said helps justify why adding more information is worse. People can still do your reading critically thing as well
I’m getting more suspicious of you after this emotional plea. What sorts sources are you upset have these comments, do you have some examples?
Nothing you’ve said helps justify why adding more information is worse
Because the additional information holds some random dipshits opinion on what is trustworthy and what not. When you see the “additional information” to show that something is trustworthy you read it uncritically
Oh wow. You believe trustworthy means you shouldn’t read something uncritically? What an interesting world you live in
Yes i believe the majority of people that assume something is declared trustworthy read it uncritically. If you read my other comment it’s easier to assume everything is not trustworthy, so it forces you to read it critically. What an naive world you live in to not see this
The idea that something is not biased based on the fact that “it shouldn’t be neither too lefty nor too righty” is absurd, it has a bias for “centrists” who believe they live on the fence but then you hear them speak they are rightists. I could go on, it’s basically trash, low effort strawman to discredit possible factual information.
I see you don’t let emotion cloud your judgements…
Signed a disgusting centerist
Ooooh. This is lemmy.ml, oops. I deleted ask anything from here since this group was tiring. But now I can guess why people are upset about the comment even though no one took the time to answer and give a few examples… they just took time to say how upsetting the site was
