Comment

there are independent studies showing its judgments to be the same as other reliable news fact checking sources.

here’s one by the national institute of health.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10500312/

there have been a bunch of studies like this about mbfc, just type in mbfc independent reliability study or something like that in any search engine and you’ll get a bunch of studies showing that they’re as credible as other reliable news fact checking sources and have no track record or evidence of misinformation.

source

Sort:hotnew top

goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
That doesn’t address the issue of mbfc adding it’s own bias in, which is what most have an issue with.

It just focuses on their factual response and even ends with

there is an issue with domain level checks like this as not every piece is held to same internal standards

source
- Varyk@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  it quite explicitly addresses these accusations.
  
  credibility is the very point of these independent studies.
  
  if mbfc checkers or other fact-checkers allowed their biases into their ratings, those findings would differ from other news fact-checking sources.
  
  since their findings range from very similar to nearly identical to other credible news fact-checking sources and importantly there is still zero evidence of their “own bias” affecting their ratings, there’s no base for the accusations.
  
  just rilers rilin’.
  
  source
  - goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    They ignored the part of
    
    MBFC Credibility Rating:
    
    Which is where the founder loves to play around with ratings based on their own biases.
    
    The study you linked too goes off of the factual rating which the founder usually doesn’t touch.
    
    It’s amazing how many they will say factual no failed fact checks then immediately doc rating because of their bias. Especially if publication doesn’t like Israel
    
    source