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 💖
lol, look at the failed fact checks of the Guardian UK and tell me that
See, this is what I’m talking about. They don’t fact check articles by specific publishers. They fact check a claim. “Is this statement true”, “did X Y”, etc. they don’t do “is this this article by the guardian true.” That’s a whole separate thing not done by them.
They offer a separate service where they rate the general trustworthiness and bias of a publication but that’s not the same as doing a specific article, is it?
Your comment makes me wonder if you might be confusing them with someone else or are intentionally saying something about them that isn’t accurate. Because your comment is incompatible with what they actually do.
The bot shares the trustworthiness and bias rating for a publication. This entire topic is about that bot. So that’s very obviously what we’re all referring to. I’m not sure if you’re confused or being obtuse.
I must be confused.
Here is my view of the conversation. Let me know where I went wrong.
People saying MBFC is biased. Me saying that that’s BS if talking about specific facts checks. Me saying they also offer a bias check for news sources. But that’s not a fact check. You reply saying that they have repeatedly gotten claims by the Guardian UK wrong. Me saying that they don’t fact check whole articles so your statement is inconsistent with the very nature of the type of fact checking they do. You come back saying you are talking about the bias check for the Guardian. Except that’s not what you said in your first comment, is it? You specifically said “failed fact checks of the Guardian UK” which isn’t about their overall rating but about specific facts checks. Their fact checking and their media bias checks are two separate functions.
So when you tell me I’m being obtuse it looks to me like either you didn’t realize that you complained about one thing while confusing it with another or are trying to gaslight me.
Where did I go wrong?
The website very clearly has a massive centrist, pro-capitalism bias. By picking and choosing what “fact checks” to include, they can tilt the “fact-based reporting” metric in whatever way they choose.
This metric is what is being included by the bot. That is the topic of conversation. If that metric is biased. It very, very, very clearly is.
Did you just criticize a fact checking organization by calling it centrist? Are you looking for a more left or right biased fact checker?
So, I’m guessing you’re American. Basically, your country is so fucked up that you call the right wing left wing and you call the far-right right wing. And centrism is like between right wing and far-right. Does that make sense? So when I say it’s centrist, I mean it’s right wing, but not explicitly fascist. Just contributing towards fascism in a “slow and steady” kind of way. You know, classical liberalism, neo-liberal, that kinda stuff.
It’s also very clearly zionist, so calling it centrist was me being a little bit nice.
Left wing is anti-capitalist, right wing is pro-capitalist. Hope that helps.
That clears it up a little. Thanks for explaining what you meant by centrist being right wing.