It was so annoying I blocked it.
First it takes way to much space, it should be a 1 liner for stating the bias, and then be able to folds out to show the rest.
Second the data is not very useful, for instance it doesn't say if a source i left or right leaning, although I suppose that trustworthy means left, as we all know facts have a liberal bias. It also doesn't show the owner of the media, which has become one of the most significant factors to judge media from.
Also I don't trust the bot to give accurate info, as the source it uses may itself be politicized.
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
59 points (71.9% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3318 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why are you using a bot that rates media unreliable because they are anti-Zionist using literal pro-israel lobby groups as their source?
Overall, we rate Mondoweiss as Left Biased and Questionable due to the blending of opinion with news, the promotion of pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist propaganda, occasional reliance on poor sources, and hate group designation by third-party pro-Israel advocates.
That's the sanitized version. They re-worded it to hide their endorsement of the redefinition of antisemitism.
The recent version:
This previous version was available while the IDF was engaged in the genocide of Palestinians:
I keep saying "them/they/their" but it's not really a group. It's mostly one guy, Dave M. Van Zandt, who has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.
The irony is that he admits that his system for judging 'bias' is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC's purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.
News from the left-leaning journalists should not be categorized with the same qualifiers as AI-generated Russian fake news sites. LGBT advocacy and lobbying organizations that have no economic intersectionality are not "Left" -- LGBT sexual identities are not inherently political. CNN is a corporate news network, not a socialist organization. It's pretty obvious the deeply flawed simplification of the political spectrum to a continuum is based on an American moderate Republican capitalist's narrow understanding of politics, and Van Zandt admits as much:
He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.
Great summary thanks for this
Don't know a lot about Mondoweiss, but I found this article that cites Weiss saying some pretty out there stuff:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/mondoweiss-is-a-hate-site/
I don't know that I like it if MBFC is just taking pro-Israel advocate at their word, but another commentator said they rated other pro-Israel sources as questionable as well. Example:
TheGrayZone wrote a great article about how Wapo operates for israel as they wrote a smear piece filled to the brim with lies about them recently.
The article you linked basically describes AIPAC and the israel lobby. The Wapo author just tries to conflate Zionism with Judiasm and quotes a paragraph out of context. The paragraph isn't worded great but in context of the article it's clearly not what the Wapo author tries to portray.
I don't know if I would take thegrayzone.com as a good source, personally:
https://www.axios.com/2020/08/11/grayzone-max-blumenthal-china-xinjiang
And therein lies the problem. The article I linked by TheGrayzone is 100% factual and every fact is traceable yet all people can do it pull up attacks from other news sites.
Instead of pulling up with more "fact checks' I'd rather people read the linked article like I did for the Wapo one about Mondoweiss and have an opinion about that. Great journalists like Ryan Grim agree with Max Blumenthal instead of Wapo in this case.
Look, honestly I don't really know who Ryan Grim is, but I googled "Ryan Grim" and "The Gray Zone" and apparently "the grayzone crowd comes after [him] all the time".
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1696331666980053126
I also don't know enough to really get into a discussion about Israel / Palestine, and I don't know anything about the drama with WaPo in the article you linked so I can't say whether or not it's 100% factual as you say.
Maybe in this specific instance, The Gray Zone is correct, and in agreement with Ryan Grim. I don't know. But the thing is, you are I are in a discussion about bias and source quality. And I'm saying to you that, in my view, The Gray Zone doesn't pass the smell test.
That's the whole point of MBFC: to get a smell test of whether a source is worth considering or not.
What I am saying is, I'm not going to spend hours of my life going through your source to check it out, and possibly verify it, or refute it point by point. Especially when the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on it is:
Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its misleading[25][26] and false reporting,[27] its criticism of American foreign policy,[1][4] and its sympathetic coverage of the Russian, Chinese and Syrian governments.[4][21][28][29] The Grayzone has downplayed or denied the persecution of Uyghurs in China,[33] and been accused of publishing conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria and other regions,[34][35][36] and publishing disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda.[32][36]
The article about Xinjiang that I linked to you was just from a random source I clicked from Wikipedia.
I realize that I am probably coming across in a rather dismissive way, but honestly I think that's the point -- if I can convince myself this quickly that a source looks suspicious, it's in my interest to dismiss it just as quickly. In the past I've spent dozens of hours doing deep dives on random sources that friends have sent me, and in every case it's been a waste of time because I ended up coming to the same conclusion that I did in 5 seconds of reading Wikipedia.
I know some people love doing these deep dives, but I've realized for myself -- like back in 2010 when one particular person was sending me crap from Natural News -- that unless I truly get "this needs the benefit of the doubt" vibes, all that time I spend just makes me feel bitter and angry at the world, and I end up having gained nothing and learned nothing from the experience.
So again, I'm sorry. Your source may be correct. But it looks seriously suspicious. Personally, I'm not willing to look any deeper than that.
I was referring to the GrayZones article about Wapo spouting false allegations being factually correct and easily fact checkable. It's not required to know any media or person in advance.
Thanks. On voyager it’s a little clumsy. The header, body, and footer takes up a lot of space. Trying to close/collapse the comment just expands the comment more.
There’s no reason this needs to be large or in your face. It should be small, like a reference. I’d try to reduce word count, lines, and just overall how much space it uses.
Your bot sucks and you should feel bad. Where's the source?
Is it your position that criticism of Israel should be censored? Is being pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, or anti-genocide antisemitic?
This is the position of Media Bias/Fact Check. By endorsing their platform, you are also endorsing their radically biased re-definition of antisemitism that is being used to slander holocaust survivors and progressive Jewish voices along with truth speakers of all races and creeds.
Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it's ironic that you're using such a biased propaganda platform to tell your readers what is credible.
Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.
you get the Lemmy.world Silver for making the longest "feedback" as many would say. About how bad MBFC is.Lmao no comment from the .world Admin on this post.
Oh they did. Just to troll the user's
Unfortunately Rooki is not accepting criticism of this decision.
Bot: Hmm this article reflects reality, thus it is biased to the left.
Using charged language like that constitutes disinformation and is reprehensible. Imagine if viewers started disregarding a source on account of your bot declaring it biased.
Shameful.
This bot uses MBFC to check context comments and adds a simple reply to show bias.
What does the bot check? It checks the comments to determine bias? What "context?"
How does the autoreply show bias?
E: Okay I went and looked at one of the autoreplies and I get what it does and I'm excited about it. That sentence could use a little work. Rest of your post is great. You could have done better! I await your revisions.
For those reporting the bot:
We know! We worked with the Admins to enable it. :)
I see why people would seek an easy solution like the bot, but it's not a good idea.
Aside from the bot, thanks for all the work you do and happy cake day :)
This is fantastic!!! Thank you so much for this.
This is fantastic news! I've been using Ground News for a while now, and it's fantastic for spotting propaganda/bias/etc. Very well done!
Ground news is sooo good