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 💖
While I love the idea, I KNOW that there are certain groups that will refuse to accept that factual information. Tankies, for instance, will refuse to accept any criticism of their preferred sources. (As will Russian-asset Jimmy Dore.) Far-right conservatives will do the same, only on the other end of the spectrum.
MBFC is not factual.
It’s subjective. The opinion of one random man on the internet and his supposed volunteers.
I’ve seen it rate Indian papers low and add comments like “Never once reported anything false.” Meanwhile some US garbage will be ranked as reliable and the comments are an essay on all the times they’ve been busted lying.
Got an example of a US source being rated reliable despite failed fact checks? I’d be interested in seeing that.
Someone up-thread posted an MSN story about Hamas killing babies, and MSN’s high rating. As we now know, that story was an Israeli fabrication.
That won’t quite qualify.
The key is that according to journalists part. If the sources lied to the outlet, then the sources lied. This is not the fault of the outlet, and does not mean they shouldn’t have reported it. That said, that probably does deserve a retraction.
To fail a fact check, you have to publish something known at the time to be misleading. Otherwise it’s a mistake, and should just be corrected when more accurate information arises.
I am disappointed that the article has not been corrected by now, however.
They failed an Al Jazeera fact check because they published an article using data from the South African government that was later updated long after the article.
So yeah, it qualifies to this trash tier site.
The only fact check failure I can see with that SA article seems to be them citing their source as a UN report, when no UN source ever made any such report.
https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/reports/no-murder-rate-women-south-africa-hasnt-spiked-117
Otherwise you are right, and this would not qualify. You cannot cite the UN when the UN is not where you are getting your data though, that is blatant misrepresentation.
I have another one - MBFC rates a site called UNWatch as “highly credible” when in fact they run trash-tier hit pieces on UN officials who criticize Israel. Their articles have been removed from [email protected] for disinformation.
I debunked one of their articles last month. If you want to see the kind of crap they publish, see a screenshot of my critique here.
Yeah that’s concerning. You could send the MBFC people an email with your evidence and see if they can take another look at the source, that’s a pretty niche one they probably won’t re-check very often unless someone requests it.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/