199

Media Bias Fact Check - Automation (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Rooki@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

139 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it's impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.

To this end, we've created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.

As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.

Thanks!

FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team 💖

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 38 points 5 months ago

That's just introducing 2 more sources of bias

[-] Rooki@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

Yes, that everyone make a better picture. Instead of getting shouted at by one manipulative entity.

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 34 points 5 months ago

Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It's pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it's a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

[-] Rooki@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Have you ever investigated every news page for its bias? With no pay? I guess not. In the end there is a human doing that manually.

Because of that we added the ground.news search url, so that if you didnt believed it you can get other news pages thoughts on this article.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

~~Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets~~ I haven't even tried to look for their about page or an FAQ.

ftfy

Not quite as opaque as it gets, certainly.

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 30 points 5 months ago

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Yeah, looks great to me.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

That's a fair criticism. It is not opacity, however. The full real name of your lead guy is transparency.

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 23 points 5 months ago

How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it's just a bunch of fake names on a page.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

That's true of all names. At a certain point you can simply decide to trust nothing if that's what you want. Plenty of people do, though personally I think that's foolish due to the pointless nihilism it results in.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Both sides? Geeet outta here.

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 13 points 5 months ago

That's literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

I understand your edgy take, but equivocating reliable and consistent mediators that accurately discern real news from propaganda with trash like Infowars as "more bias" is nonsense.

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 13 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I'm not saying all their work is worthless and I know they're good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Not entirely and unequivocally avoiding bias every time isn't the "opposite of avoiding bias", it's an example of perfect being the enemy of good.

There may technically be inherent bias everywhere, but it's at best useless and in practice harmful and inaccurate to lump MBFC in with grayzone and to equivocate in general.

Example from 2020:

"Biden is just another politician, like Trump"

Technically true that they are both politicians, but without recognizing the difference between Biden and trump, the states wouldn't have student debt cancellations, no federal minority legal defenses, fifty plus liberally appointed judges, no reversal of the trans ban, no veteran health coverage for toxic exposure, no green new deal, no international climate accords, no healthcare expansion and so on.

or:

"who cares, it's just another plant", but arugula is a great salad green while a bite of foxglove can kill you.

It's important to recognize the shades of grey and distinguish one from another.

How fucked is it that such a poorly written book has ruined the extremely useful phrase "shades of grey"?

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 17 points 5 months ago

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: "a less direct propaganda approach" for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: "exhibits significant bias against Israel" for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on "due to two failed fact checks in the last five years" one being a single reporter's statement and the other being about Greenland's ice sheets. That doesn't seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"good is not the enemy of perfect"

Incorrect quote.

Your problem is making "perfect the enemy of good."

You are

mistaking bias check for news reporting
making perfection the enemy of the good
arguing that mostly doesn't mean mostly(spoiler, mostly does mean mostly)
"this is clearly an ideological decision": No, your examples provided are both conclusions based on consistent objective standards, the opposite of ideology.

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024

199 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39522 readers

1774 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
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.