Comment on Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?

• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨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

      • just2look@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

        mediabiasfactcheck.com/left-vs-right-bias-how-we-…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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

      • just2look@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

        source
    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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

      • just2look@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Consistently factual is exactly that. Both of those words mean actual things. And they go on to say that they can’t fail fact checks. And prompt corrections likely means that as a story develops, that if there were incorrect things reported, they are corrected as soon as the new information is available.

        As for who defines extreme bias, it’s literally them. That is what they are saying they are doing. And they spell out what their left vs right criteria are. And how they judge it. Of course this is subjective. There isn’t really a way to judge the political spectrum without subjectivity. They do include examples in their reports about what biased language, sources, or reporting they found. Which allows you to easily judge whether you agree with it.

        As for VOA, they say in the ownership portion that it is funded by the US government and that some view it as a propaganda source. They also discuss the history and purpose of it being founded. And then continue on with the factual accuracy and language analysis. You may not agree with it, but it is following their own methodology, and fully explained in the report.

        Again, there isn’t anything saying you have to agree with them. It is a subjective rating. I’m not sure how much more transparent they can be though. They have spelled out how they grade, and each report provides explanations and examples that allow you to make your own judgments. Or a starting point for your own research.

        If you can define a completely objective methodology to judge political bias on whatever spectrum you choose, then please do. It’s inherently subjective. And there isn’t really a way around that.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

    source

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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

      • finley@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Now you’re just repeating yourself.

        source

        • -> View More Comments