this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
112 points (69.4% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2368 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
112
Media Bias Fact Check - Automation (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 💖

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mods, I appreciate this bot!

Deciphering media bias is tough, and finding 1 site that will 'perfectly' identify biases is an impossible task, but at the minimum having this bot show up on posts 'gets people thinking' about the credibility of their news sources.

MBFC doesn't have to be the ultimate arbitrator either. If it is missing something about a specific article people can call it out in the comments. At the end of the day, the worst thing it does is add more data about a news source and I'm not gonna complain about that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

Remove that. It’s too US centric. I don’t want that here.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Given the overwhelmingly negative response from the community, what is the justification for leaving the bot in place? Is it because the moderators think they know better than everyone else?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

Please get rid of it. I'll figure my own truth from facts I descern are true. I don't need someone else telling me what to believe. Especially with the election coming up...

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 months ago (4 children)

It has been pointed out multiple times that mbfc is ran by a Zionist.

There is no way the mod team is not aware of this by now so it must be on purpose.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think it's a great addition, but it sure does eat up a lot of space. Any way it can be condensed to the absolute basic information?

This is what it looks like for me on Boost: Sample of the bot comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

It is. You just need a client that can handle the formatting most likely?

[–] [email protected] 45 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm just gonna drop this here as an example:

The Jerusalem Report (Owned by Jerusalem Post) and the Jerusalem Post

This biased as shit publication is declared by MBFC as VEEEERY slightly center-right. They make almost no mention of the fact that they cherry pick aspects of the Israel war to highlight, provide only the most favorable context imaginable, yadda yadda. By no stretch of the imagination would these publications be considered unbiased as sources, yet according to MBFC they're near perfect.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

yet according to MBFC they’re near perfect

Here are some quotes from the link you posted:

They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.

After Conrad Black acquired the paper, its political position changed to right-leaning, when Black began hiring conservative journalists and editors. Eli Azur is the current owner of Jerusalem Post. According to Ynetnews, and a Haaretz article, “Benjamin Netanyahu, the Editor in Chief,” in 2017, Azur gave testimony regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pressure. Current Editor Yaakov Katz was the former senior policy advisor to Naftali Bennett, the former Prime Minister and head of the far-right political party, “New Right.”

During the 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict, the majority of stories favored the Israeli government, such as this Netanyahu to Hezbollah: If you attack, we’ll turn Beirut into Gaza. In general, the Jerusalem Post holds right-leaning editorial biases and is usually factual in reporting.

Overall, we rate The Jerusalem Post Right-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the right-leaning government. We also rate them Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to two failed fact checks.

Based on MBFC's methodology, they can't have more than 6 points (out of 10) toward credibility, which is the floor for high credibility. They're one lost point from being listed as a medium credibility source, not "near perfect." They've also failed two fact checks in news reporting (not op-ed), which is seriously non-perfect. No one reading that page could walk away thinking that jpost isn't biased toward both the current Israeli government and conservative causes. MBFC calling them "right-center" is also consistent with how they're rated just about everywhere else. AllSides rates them as "center" (with a note that community feedback in disagreement believes they "lean right") and even Wikipedia describes them as "center-right/conservative".

What exactly are you angry about here?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Interesting how @Rooki is still a day later active in this post responding to all the comments supporting their bot, but manages to avoid replying to all the legitimate criticisms on display.

Really shows the mods don't value feedback, which begs the question why even bother making a thread to get feedback if you've already made up your mind.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A whole lot of people here don't read MBFC each day and it shows. They tend to take a single and testable claim and make a decision. It's really easy to see if the claim is true or false if the claim is specific. They don't have a habit of taking a big claim and ruling it false because of one small detail like Snopes does.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

lol, look at the failed fact checks of the Guardian UK and tell me that

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Good, one should always refer to the Ministry of Truth before deciding what is true or false for The Party.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Media Bias Fact Check is totally meaningless in world news since the overwhelming majority of international news coverage seen in the west is filtered through just three global agencies, AP, AFP and Reuters and they always toe a pro US/Nato line.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›