Comment on Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?

FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• just2look@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • just2look@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.

      mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

      So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. And none of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. And 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.

      source

      • protist@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Oh look. You copied my link!

        Sorry. No they don’t.

        That’s not “rigorously defined”. It’s a bunch of weasel words and vagaries.

        For example. In “factual reporting”, to get a “very high” score:

        A source with a “Very High” rating is consistently factual, relies on credible information, promptly corrects errors, and has never failed any fact checks in news reporting or opinion pieces.

        What is “consistently factual” mean? What qualifies as “a credible source”? What does “prompt” mean?

        Those are all nice sounding words, but they don’t really tell you anything. Prompt could be anything from seconds to weeks. (And let’s be honest, probably varies from researcher to researcher.)

        Oh they go into more detail….

        A questionable source, for example:

        Questionable sources display extreme bias, propaganda, unreliable sourcing, or a lack of transparency. They may also engage in disseminating fake news for profit or influence. Such sources are generally unreliable and require fact-checking on an article-by-article basis. A source lacking transparency in mission, ownership, or authorship is automatically categorized as questionable. Additionally, sources from countries with significant government censorship are also deemed questionable.

        Who defines their extreme bias? What is propaganda?

        Voice of America is literally a government ran propaganda service yet they assign it high factual, least-biased and high credibility.

        Sorry, but their methodology isn’t a methodology, and the only thing that’s inherently reproducible is their fact check rating. Everything else relies on what their subjective analysis.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        There is a lot of good stuff there but it’s still opaque when it comes to bias specifically. I mean, am I missing somether here? I genuinely feel like there must be a whole section I’ve missed it something based on some of the other commenters. The bias methodology is no more a methodology than “grind up some wheat, mix some water and yeast before chucking it in the oven for a bit” is a recipe for bread. You rate 4 categories from 0 - 10 and average it, but the ratings themselves are totally subjective.

        Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.

        What does this even mean? If a site runs stories covering the IPCC recommendations for climate action but doesn’t run some right wing conspiracy version of how climate change is a hoax, is that biased story selection?

        source
    • finley@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      On each page, they describe, in detail, exactly how they come to their conclusions.

      source

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments