Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Good bot! I like this shit
Media Bias Fact Check is only considered "reliable" because people use it. The actual authors of the site lack any real credentials for evaluating factuality, nevermind bias.
I'd love to discuss this more if you'd be interested. I teach mass communications and visual literacy courses at a university and have over a decade of experience. I'm always interested in discussing these things further, as media literacy is extremely important and we can only educate others and make improvements with our literacy skills through discussion, learning, and practice.
Could you tell me more about the authors you mention and where you got the information from?
One thing I like about Media Bias Fact Check is that their methodology is transparent and clear. Yes, there is a certain level of subjectivity, as there is with any analysis like this. They utilize fact checking best practices and have ethical funding. Even their competitors rate them to be accurate and credible.
They are considered reliable not because people use them, but because of their methodologies, transparency, and factuality. Nothing is 100%, but it's a good resource in my opinion.
The only thing we know about the authors of Media Bias Fact Check is what they've posted on their website. There's no corroborating source, no evidence of background, and no indication that these people actually exist other than a business registration for a sole prop and a sparsely-populated mortgage for the lead editor. You can feel free to dig deeper (I've focused on the primary author and editor), but this wouldn't pass the sniff test.
Moreover, their methodology, frankly, doesn't hold up to any type of scientific method. It's a perversion of the scientific process. Their methodology is essentially surveying one of the authors and asking them to draw a point on a line. That's not science.
Based on their methodology, Electronic Intifada has never failed a fact check and should be "very factual"... But it's recorded as "mostly factual" because they have biased reporting. Reuters is recorded as "very factual," but they've gotten a number of things wrong without correction... Sort of comes with the territory of being a news wire service. CBC, which has also not failed a fact check, only gets a "highly factual" rating because of their supposed left-leaning bias. Essentially, their subjective analysis conflates factuality with bias.
This also raises a bigger problem: the lead author and editor is clearly American and guides ratings towards an American Overton window. Thus, bias is viewed on the left-to-right scale commonly used in the US, with the center defined as the American center. Normally, this wouldn't be a huge problem for American audiences, but as established MBFC conflates factuality with bias: essentially, any source that deviates from the "center of the American political spectrum" is seen as less factual. Their source for fact checks is a newspaper run out of a school that has received funding from the US state-funded Voice of America.
This is, of course, operating under the assumption that their methodology is actually valid... And that, in itself, is a dangerous assumption to make. There's a lack of transparency in who's doing what evaluation, and the end result of that is that the assessment itself is basically "what does one guy think about this site." Despite them defining what they mean by left and right, they give scant evidence to justify their "quantitative" evaluation of sources - this, itself, makes their evaluation qualitative.
Some of their details also show a lack of understanding of the media landscape. Calling CBC News a "TV station" is a joke. Their website is also, frankly, a mess, which bothers me because it's clear that they aren't following basic modern web development principles and that's really fucking annoying.
Their methodology is bunk, there's very little transparency within their organization to establish credibility, and they conflate factuality with their perception of bias.
Maybe these people would be happier moving to a country where their religion is forced down from the government? Maybe go there?
You’re incompatible with western society so change or get the fuck out.
And before anyone jumps down my throat I’m speaking specifically of those who don’t accept that things like freedom of speech includes things they don’t like.
They are here to expand their religion, not for escaping their country or freedom of speech. They are using freedom of speech to make themselves a victim while expanding their religion in the back.
Religion ruins everything. Also here is a painting of Mohammed
fuck mohammed, peace be upon him
Islam is so touchy. Even pointing out Mohammed was a bandit and a pedophile gets them going and that is just straight facts anyone can get from reading about his life.
Religious extremists are the touchy ones. Plenty of Muslim folks who go on with their lives in peace.
I do agree that islamist extremists are the worst.
To be honest, the Nationalist Christians (Nat-C’s) that we have here at home are pretty fucking unsettling. They know that it’s their god-given right to be in charge of everything and they will “save” everyone by trying to force their twisted interpretation of religious texts onto the populace with zero compromise, because “that’s god’s plan”.
They’re just as bad as Islamic extremists; they’re just committing their violence in more official channels and in a slower fashion, up until the day that they manage to get an unshakable hold on power (read: establish a “theocratic” dictatorship, like the Republic of Gilead from Handmaid’s Tale, which they took as an aspirational goal instead of a cautionary story).
Yep. They're killing people through legislation and propaganda, instead of more directly observable ways. But it's still clear
Yeah, at the most, the Muslims in my life would've said "hey I find that disrespectful can you please not" and go about their day.
In Europe there are more Muslim refugees though, than, for example, in North America which gets more regular Muslim immigrants.
It's a specific problem in Europe with an influx of refugees from war torn and poor countries who are often troubled, more extreme in their religion and potentially less educated (because they fled from shitty countries).
I guess it's more connected to those circumstances than with Islam in itself. Statistically, more educated and better off people are less religious. I suspect that's the same with Muslims?!
all religions are cancer. ALL. period. I can criticise any fanatic of any religion the same way I criticise the fanatics of the religion I grew up and was brainwashed to follow. I was able to leave. For some people it may be more difficult because of the situation in their country. However, the people who migrate in mostly atheistic west countries, they continue being fanatics by choice.
However, the people who migrate in mostly atheistic west countries, they continue being fanatics by choice.
There are Arabs who migrate to Europe because they're not allowed not express their disbelief in their home countries.
I'm sorry what? 2.5 years? Is that a joke? Those animals should never set foot outside prison walls again no matter their age.
The five other minors to be prosecuted, aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the attack, will be charged with premeditated criminal conspiracy, or ambush.
They are suspected of having pointed out Paty to the murderer or helped monitor his exit from the school.
They weren’t involved in the killing, they are guilty of pointing him out.
Did you just read the headline and get outraged without pausing for even a second to think "2.5 years for murder and mutilation can't be right, I better read the article"?
They are not the perpetrators, and were kids at the time. Kids are easily influenced, and make mistakes, a lot of them.
In this case those mistakes ended up causing the gruesome death of an innocent teacher, that is why they are on trial. If someone is guilty, it is their parents, who failed to educate them, and those who exploited those weaknesses to put them under their influence.
They are not the perpetrators, and were kids at the time. Kids are easily influenced, and make mistakes, a lot of them.
Im sorry but my mistakes as a kid were breaking windows not beheading people.
In this case it is more selling information about the victim to the perpetrator.
The tribunal task will be to evaluate if they knew what the perpetrator was about to do, in which case their punishment will be harsher, or if they didn't.
These kids haven't killed anyone. A weird guy told them who is the teacher who's insulted Muhamad, here is 300 EUR, I'll teach him to not do it again
They couldn't guess what was about to happen, and now live with the guilt and trauma which is a worse sentence than any jail time
You’re presuming a state of mind, just as the other people you’re arguing against are. We don’t know if they regret it or not and never will.
i'd just like to comment on this comment section
since i've joined lemmy some months ago i've seen the nuanced discussion i was so relieved and happy to find here degrading. this section ilustrates that well. the nuanced and cautious are still there, but are being briganded against in a way i don't think they were before
maybe i'm sounding like an "eternal september" elitist here, but i do like open discussions on the internet, with all the ugliness that's bound to happen. i just really hope with all my heart that, in the midst of it all, the good things don't go away
There is no nuanced discussion on this topic, as there is only 1 correct reaction, within which any degree of outrage is justified.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
PARIS, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Six teenagers go on trial behind closed doors on Monday, accused of involvement in the beheading of French history teacher Samuel Paty by a suspected Islamist in 2020 in an attack that struck at the heart of the country's secular values.
The teacher had shown his pupils cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a class on freedom of expression, angering a number of Muslim parents.
One of the minors is a 15-year-old girl who allegedly told her parents that Paty had shown caricatures of the prophet in her class.
Paty, 47, was killed outside his school in a Paris suburb by an 18-year-old assailant, born in Russia of Chechen origin, who was shot dead by police soon after the attack.
France is home to Europe's largest Muslim minority and has suffered a wave of attacks by Islamist militants or their sympathisers in past years.
In the wake of Paty's killing, some teachers acknowledged they censored themselves to avoid confrontation with pupils and parents over religion and free speech.
The original article contains 293 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Really don't know what to make of this comments section. I feel like if this were the World News subreddit, this thread would have already been locked and about 90% of the commenters banned, either by the mods or the Reddit admins.
It's surreal to see comments so hostile towards Islam, on Lemmy of all places... And some of these are arguments I often see racists throw around.
When I was in high school I screamed in the middle of biology class "those are not gonads, those are balls!". I still feel bad about it because the teacher was so nice and I was a nightmare.
I feel a bit better.
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/