• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    194 months ago

    This rating is not “expecting” anything. This assessment is accurate, it IS left leaning and mostly factual, with unlabeled opinion pieces… What is the problem with identifying that? All news sites are biased, it’s just how it is

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      164 months ago

      Rating it as though they’ve published something that is untrue (what the average person expects from a factuality rating) when they explicitly haven’t failed fact checks is stupid AF.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -14 months ago

        Just because an opinion piece doesn’t fail a fact-check doesn’t mean it’s not an opinion piece, and it should be labeled as such

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          94 months ago

          So factor that into the bias rating, not the factuality rating, because that is about bias and not whether or not they have published things that are untrue.

          • @RedAggroBest
            link
            14 months ago

            Presenting an opinion as fact (such as not labeling opinion pieces) would be a factuality issue no?

              • @RedAggroBest
                link
                -14 months ago

                So you’re saying I’m right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue. Presenting an opinion as either is a factuality issue.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  34 months ago

                  So you’re saying I’m right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue.

                  If it’s not untrue then it shouldn’t affect the factuality rating, not sure why this is hard to get.

                  Incidentally as another user pointed out in this thread, LGBTQ Nation does label their opinion pieces as such. Until MBFC presents evidence otherwise, I’m going to conclude that what they have deemed “undisclosed opinions” are things like “trans kids exist and deserve protection”.

      • @HomerianSymphony
        link
        -1
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Opinions aren’t facts, though. (Even if they contain no misinformation.)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          74 months ago

          Again, I think the average person is going to see factuality rating and read it as “how much of their reporting is true or untrue” and not “what amount of their reporting could potentially contain opinions according to the guy that runs MBFC”.

      • DarkThoughts
        link
        fedilink
        -24 months ago

        If you sell opinion pieces as news then yes, that’s not truthful and a completely valid criticism as people could misread it as actual news. You should rather ask why they did not fix this yet, which would not just improve their rating quite a bit, but also be an overall improvement for the readers and the overall concept of sharing information (and it is trivially easy to do so too). Crying about that feels rather weird and like agenda pushery.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              44 months ago

              I kinda think it’s their responsibility to keep their site updated when they ask for money for the express purpose of doing that.

              • DarkThoughts
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                They literally only have donations set up and almost 10k sites listed. Please stop the entitled shit when it is pretty clear that the whole site relies heavily on user feedback too. Either you join in making it better and becoming a more decent human being in the process, or you can continue to cry about a free service not being 100% up to date. And lets be honest here, if you’d truly care about that news site and its entry then you would’ve done the former already.

      • @WrathUDidntQuiteMask
        link
        -34 months ago

        Are you inferring that it’s not possible for an LBGTQ+ publication to misrepresent facts?

        To me the rating is less about how “pro,” “anti” or “in-between” something is, and more about factual reporting of details

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          104 months ago

          Are you inferring that it’s not possible for an LBGTQ+ publication to misrepresent facts?

          No, which is why my comment specifically pointed out they failed no fact checks.

          • @WrathUDidntQuiteMask
            link
            -44 months ago

            Yea that’s not at all what I said. But don’t let that get in the way of posting pictures of comments someone else made about unrelated subjects!