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…

  • mashbooq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    I lost all confidence in it when it rated Jerusalem Post and Euronews (associated with Viktor Orban) as “highly reliable”. Both push the pro-fascist narratives of their associated governments. It’s better to have no labeling than to label fascist propaganda as “highly reliable”

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Any the branding of anything that is impartial as left center?? Like BBC News, Axios, Yahoo News, Sports Illustrated, left center??

      And then the fucking economist which supported the UK conservatives not long ago and supported Bush is branded as left center

      • zazo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Same reason I don’t trust it - imagine rating fking BBC (the literal pro-state violence, austerity supporting, anti-immigration governmental mouth piece as “left-center”)

        It just distorts people’s perception of what political biases are and makes them complacent by relying on an automated bot to do the important work of using your own judgment for what constitutes as moral or justified.

        By letting it platform itself on lemmy, it’s basically inserting itself as the de facto expert on the topic - so for example, people overseas might see BBC rated as left-center and highly factual and start believing that wanting to “secure your borders” is a thing that UK leftist want. Well excuse me if I don’t want a privately owned (even if open source) US company deciding what political views others should have.

        • otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          imagine rating fking BBC (the literal pro-state violence, austerity supporting, anti-immigration governmental mouth piece as “left-center”)

          I believe it uses the American standard where anything based in reality is left of “center”, lol

    • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Fucking hell even Euronews is controlled by Orbán? Ffs there is truly no free media here other than RTL on TVs.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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…

    To express dissatisfaction.

    There’s a lot of people that view the MBFC reports as themselves being biased, and to be fair, their process for generating the reports are opaque as fucking hell so we have no way to know how biased or not they are.

    it’s also kinda spammy, and- IMO- not really all that useful.

    • just2look@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why do you say they’re opaque? They detail the history of the publication, the ownership, their analysis of bias within their reporting, and give examples of failed fact checks. I’m not sure what else you could want about how a publication is rated? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but they seem to be putting a solid effort into explaining how they arrive at the ratings they give.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because their methodology is nothing but buzzwords:

        The primary aim of our methodology is to systematically evaluate the ideological leanings and factual accuracy of media and information outlets. This is achieved through a multi-faceted approach that incorporates both quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments in accordance with our rigorously defined criteria.

        Despite apparently having “rigorously defined criteria”, they don’t actually say what they are.

        • just2look@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

          So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. None of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. You can look at the full methodology if you want more than just that small bullet description.

          I’m not saying that you have to agree with their scoring, or that it is necessarily accurate. I just think if you’re going to critique a thing, you should at least know what you’re critiquing.

          • Artisian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Bravo for bringing the notes. On a first glance, some of these feel like they require subjectivity (like, do we really believe the political spectrum is 1d?), but I agree I could run the computation myself from this.

            • just2look@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              There is definitely some subjectivity. Language isn’t something that is easily parsed and scored. That is why they give examples on the actual report about the kind of biased language they saw, or whatever other issues led to the score given.

              I don’t think they mean for their website to be the end all bias resource. More of a stepping off point for you to make your own judgments.

          • protist@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s crucial to note that our bias scale is calibrated to the political spectrum of the United States, which may not align with the political landscapes of other nations.

            But what even is this false left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican one-dimensional scale? The first thing they state on this page is that all this is inherently subjective. Who is MBFC to determine where the middle of this scale exists? If people want to seek out their opinion, that’s fine, but this is inherently a subjective opinion about what constitutes “left center” vs “center,” for example. I don’t get how MBFC deserves their opinion on every news post.

            Also the formatting of the bot is awful as displayed on most Lemmy apps. On mine it’s a giant wall of text. Other posts/bots don’t look bad, just this one.

            • just2look@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              They cover what they consider left and right. This way you can judge whether it aligns with what you believe. And it allows you to interpret their results even if they don’t follow the same spectrum you do.

              And if you know of a way to discuss political spectrum without subjectivity I would love to hear it. Even if you don’t use a 2d spectrum, it’s still subjective. Just subjective with additional criteria.

              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left-vs-right-bias-how-we-rate-the-bias-of-media-sources/

              • protist@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                And if you know of a way to discuss political spectrum without subjectivity I would love to hear it.

                Of course that doesn’t exist, my point is why does this specific subjective opinion get promoted on here?

                • just2look@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Why does any opinion get promoted on here? Because somebody posted it. And then there is a voting system and comments for people to express their agreement or disagreement.

                  I honestly don’t care either way if the bot exists. I just think it’s silly that people are claiming that MBFC is terrible based on basically nothing. You can disagree with how they define left vs right, or what their ratings are, but they are pretty transparent about how their system works. And no one has given any example of how it could be done better.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            here’s their definition of what’s a left or right bias

            It’s pretty fucking arbitrary.

            Additionally, their methodology is a bunch of gibberish and buzz words. that they explain their justification on each article is inadequate. For example, Al jazeera is dinged for using “negative emotion” words like “Deadly”.

            Deadly might invoke a certain kind of emotion. but it’s also the simplest way to describe an attack in which some one dies. Literally every news service will use “deadly attack” if people are dying, regardless if it’s an attack by terrorists, or by cackling baboons. (or indeed not even an attack. for example ‘Deadly wildfire’ or ‘deadly hurricane’.) the application of using that as an example is extremely arbitrary, on a case by case basis.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 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
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 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.

    • otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I downvoted then blocked it because:

    • I don’t trust its specific analysis of sites. Others detail some examples.

    • I don’t think whole-site analysis is very useful in combatting misinformation. The reliability and fullness of facts presented by any single site varies a lot depending on the topic or type of story.

    • Other than identifying blatant disinformation sites I don’t see what useful information it provides. But even that’s rare here and rarely needs a bot to spot.

    • Why is an open-source, de-centralized platform giving free space to a private company?

    • Giving permission for a private trust-assesing company to be operating in an open public forum makes it look as if these assessments reflect a neutral reality that most or all readers would agree on or want to be aware of. It’s a service that people can seek out of they decide they trust it.

    Presenting this company’s assessment on each or most articles gives them undue authority that is especially inappropriate on the fediverse.

    • scrion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thank you, those are the precise point that summarize my gripes with it. In particular, I feel it encourages people to perceive it as an authoritative source and to form their opinions on sites it rates (often wrongly) without additional thinking / fact checking.

      It’s basically a company propaganda tool that can change its own option and ratings any time, influencing others in the process.

    • otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Those are some great points. I do wish we had something better. But I find it to be “good enough” for when it’s a source I’m unfamiliar with.

      Can’t quite say I have the time or motivation to start reading a bunch of other articles from a given source when I’m concerned about its credibility.

  • SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    “Oh, this new post already has a comment, let’s check it out! … Dang it!”

    After the third or fourth time it’s just spammy, and the bot formatting just doesn’t work on connect.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      the bot formatting just doesn’t work on connect.

      That fault lies with the Connect dev though… the formatting used on the webUI works as intended.

      • SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Probably, still remains that out of all the bots I’ve seen this is the only one with format issues. I believe a minimalist approach to be preferable for bots since their goal is spreading information over a large userbase with various client, from CLI to native web page.

    • HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Oh, this new post already has a comment, let’s check it out! … Dang it!”

      Downvoting doesn’t address this. You can try hiding bots tho.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Downvoting definitely makes your opinion on it known though. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here reading all this.

        • otp@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think it does. People are explaining all kinds of different reasons why they downvote the bot, so there’s no cohesive reason why it gets downvoted.

          In fact, a fair number of people don’t even seem to understand what the bot actually does…lol

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think that’s exactly what it does. It doesn’t matter why they don’t like having it around. They don’t like having it around. And that feedback is important.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Because it’s biased, takes up too much space, provides nothing of value, and its posts are by definition low effort.

    For me to like a bot requires it provides something of value, be unbiased, and not take up too much space.

  • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    To me, bots are just noise if not summoned directly. Like when you’re having a conversation with your friend, then a loud roomba comes in and tries to clean the very space you’re sitting at.

    “Hey bot, tell me facts about the article OP posted.”

    “Sure! [etc, etc]”

    Versus:

    “HEY I KNOW YOU HAVEN’T ADDRESSED ME DIRECTLY BUT YOU SAID THE WORD ‘BUTT’ 17 TIMES TODAY!”

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I use an instance that does not display or parse downvotes or permit them locally.

    So I don’t see the phenomenon. I don’t care about downvotes. I only see the upvotes; which are a far better indicator to me as to how useful a post I made is. If someone posts trash or extremist things; I block them. If they try to argue in bad faith or with far too extremist of a viewpoint, I block them.

    The bot doesn’t always get the most upvotes but it does have it’s uses. As someone who has used the Ground News app in the past; I have a sense of their rating scale and I do find that it helps classify things; although you should always use your own discretion and not just blindly trust the bot.

    But most people who downvote this bot, do so for completely wrong reasons. Usually they’re upset because they disagree with the assessment of the bot, or do not understand it’s scale. Maybe they don’t like their viewpoint’s position being laid bare for all to see.

    Maybe that should be explained more; and there’s posts on Ground News’ website that EXPLAINS how their rating system works. Perhaps the bot should link them.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Some people are pissed that the format is spammy? That’s the complaint I’ve heard.

    I’d certainly prefer something like post tagging/labels but within the current feature set of lemmy I think it’s about as good as it could be.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s my gripe with it. Its single comment fills the entire screen of my phone when scrolling past and it uses gigantic font, a big separator line (?), and links mixed with text mixed with more links.

      Additionally, it fucks with the “new comment” and “hot” sorting, depending on how active Lemmy is at the time, by spamming post after post with a comment even though there is no actual discussion happening.

      • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        You should use a client that supports all of the text formatting. On Voyager the bot’s comment is smaller than most when collapsed (which it is by default).

        • Alteon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, I’m not changing my entire client that I’ve gotten used to just to deal with a single bot that annoys me.

    • Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I have never seen a bot that does good. Got sick of them on reddit and other sites. So when I see it here which is my safe haven. I will downvote or report it because it has not place here.

  • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    It said MSNBC had a leftist bias. The bot, and by extension its developers, have as much credibility as your Fox News watching uncle who calls everything they don’t like “communism”.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        We seem to have a different opinion of what is left-wing and what is not. I do not think the Democratic party is left-wing at all. It is centre-right to right (with the Republican party being far-right).

        I know of none American left-wing news outlets and the only left-wing bias I know of is truth.

        • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sure, the Democrats aren’t calling for a literal communist revolution. But there are realistically only two parties in the US and MSNBC is a non-stop, hyper-partisan booster for the party that’s further to the left.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I am not from the US so why should I base my definition of left-wing on the Democratic party (and subsequently arrive upon the wrong conclusion that the Democratic party is leftist)? More importantly, why would you?

            If you want to talk relatively, use relative terms. That being said, left of the farthest right is not very useful, which is precisely why I care about the distinction.

            • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Because MSNBC is an American organization and their coverage is American-focused, their bias relative to American politics is what’s relevant here. It doesn’t matter what their beliefs or policy positions are relative to any particular standard, what matters is whether or not their work presents the news accurately or in a way intended to mislead or influence their viewers in favor of one side or the other, which they clearly do. We don’t even need to agree on whether the Democrats are a ‘real’ left party, only that they’re to the left of the alternative and that MSNBC favors them.

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Because MSNBC is an American organization and their coverage is American-focused, their bias relative to American politics is what’s relevant here.

                I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree. They are making claims about a lot of news outlets in other countries, which means they cannot present an American skewed perspective as the truth (unless what they really want is to export political views and exert influence domestically and abroad, now we might be talking here).

                It doesn’t matter what their beliefs or policy positions are relative to any particular standard, what matters is whether or not their work presents the news accurately or in a way intended to mislead or influence their viewers in favor of one side or the other, which they clearly do.

                All reporting should be held to the highest standard. Anyone seriously attempting to critique and comment on reporting at a meta level, should hold themselves to the same, or even a higher standard, for the same reason. What I am essentially arguing is that the MediaBiasFactCheck falls in line with pretty much all of US news as mass propaganda machines in the interest of capital. If you disagree, why do you think they operate at all?

        • Ice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          As an outsider, the Dem party is in a funky spot politically. Whilst it economically is to the right, many of its social policies it endorses are leftist. Their emphasis on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is a large part of that, regulation of expressions and policy of migration.

          Where I live, most of our political parties are left of the dems economically (basic welfare is not even a debate), but many would clearly be right of them (though usually not even close to the republicans) in social policy.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, living in a parliamentary democracy means I have to make an effort to wrap my head around how the US “democratic” institution works. The internal structure of the Democratic Party has more in common with our democratic structure than the structure of their “competing” parties. As a result there is more room for difference within the Democratic Party than within a political party in our system, but the political difference between parties in our system is greater than those within the democratic party.

            Whilst it economically is to the right, many of its social policies it endorses are leftist.

            My analysis has long been that there is no political will to implement leftist economical policies in the US, i.e. those that really matter in the grand scheme of things, even though there exists a semi-conscious wish for them within the populace. Please do not misunderstand, increasing equity between people of different backgrounds is important, but important single issues such as gay marriage are insufficient if they do not come along with, or better yet, as a product of equity of material conditions. It was all the same with the feminist movement where social advancements were conceded in lieu of increasing their economical statuses, with the division in measurable quantities, such as income or capital ownership still going strong (note I do not advocate changing the ruling elite from one subset of people to another subset of different characteristics, but instead saying that capital ownership should be transferred from the subset to the whole).

            Strengthening the political power of the marginalized by increasing the material conditions of their strata is the best way to make social progress, which the ruling elite of the US is painfully aware and which is why they sometimes are willing to skip the first step and reach the inevitable second immediately. The discrepancy between the people’s wants and needs for leftist policies, again conscious or not, and the actual politics of the US, is deeply connected to the Democratic Party’s willingness to concede these social changes without losing the backing of the capital interests that fund them.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Political stances are relative across the globe. You can’t just draw a line in the middle of American political talking points and then apply that generalization to the rest of the world. It’s more useful to describe specific ideologies (although even that gets pretty muddy fast), but that wouldn’t be very practical for a bit either. Imagine if it somehow concluded that Mother Jones has a “minarchist-capitalist” bias. Still, I question the use of this bot, which is probably based on US terms, running this analysis on a site called “lemmy.world”.

          • zazo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Which is why the bot is not useful - it literally tries to standardize political stances when that’s actually impossible.

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    IIRC, it lists a zionist/anti-Palestine news website as highly trustworthy. I can’t tell which side is right, I have it blocked.

      • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s possible to factually accurate with heavy bias, but since that would require selective reporting to enforce a single worldview I wouldn’t consider that “highly trustworthy”.

        Consider the following hypothetical headlines:
        “Teen Killed by Islamic Group During Shooting”
        “Terrorist Shooting at Mosque, 20 Dead”

        Both are technically factually accurate ways to describe a hypothetical scenario where a teen shoots up a place of worship before being stopped by one of the victims, but they both paint very different pictures. Would you consider both sources “highly trustworthy”?

    • mholiv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      If you actually read the article it seems pretty factual. It lists Bush’s claims and then has a response. Seems to merit the rating.

      The reporting of the Bush administration’s position and the response seems fair.

      **IRAQ:**
      
      STATUS: Since 1998, the Iraqi government has barred U.N. weapons inspectors from examining sites where some suspect that nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are made and stored. The United Nations has said it will lift sanctions against the Middle Eastern country -- in place since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War in 1991 -- only if inspectors can verify that Iraq has dismantled all its weapons of mass destruction. In an editorial this month in a state-run newspaper, Iraq again denied it has or is developing such weapons.
      
      RESPONSE TO BUSH'S SPEECH: "This statement of President Bush is stupid and a statement that does not befit the leader of the biggest state in the world," Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Wednesday.
      
      • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Narratives are created by more than just that, including what is reported on, how frequently it is reported, and what is not reported on. See Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” to learn more.

  • PanArab@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It suggested Al Jazeera has a leftist bias, despite Al Jazeera being funded by Qatar the furthest thing from being a leftist government. It is biased against any non-Western sources.

  • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Other people clearly don’t think it’s a helpful resourcem

    You don’t have to have an alternative in order to disagree.

    That’s not how life works.

    Just because I don’t know the formula of Hydrochloric acid doesnt mean I can’t disagree with someone saying it’s Barium and Oxygen

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Other people clearly don’t think it’s a helpful resourcem

      They should block it.

      It gets weird when folks start trying to keep everyone else from having it available as a resource.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Disinformation is dangerous. That’s how we got the white “alternative facts” thing in the first place. We shouldn’t tolerate it at all.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nobody in this comment section has provided a single instance of it being disinformation. But people sure are claiming a lot of shit without backing up it one bit. I’m inclined to believe that they’re most likely far right trolls who disagree with their favorite news outlets getting labeled something.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 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.

            So you missed this comment then? And the ones where they point out any pro Palestinian source is rated badly?

            • tyler@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              There isn’t a single link or source for literally any of these claims in any of the comments. So yeah I’m still pretty sure it’s just people making shit up until they can back up a claim, even one.

                • tyler@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Not if they don’t provide a link to the news source they’re talking about. So yeah, still no proof, source, nothing. Pretty clear it’s your bias at this point.