I wish people would stop linking to this crap, it is literally just what one individual American centrist thinks of sources. In his methodology he explicitly states centrist (from an American standpoint) sources are intrinsically more credible.
It’s easier to judge the credibility of one guy than a thousand guys.
To be fair, I don’t much attention to it either, and you can always block the bot so that you don’t see it. I already blocked that AI summary bot because I don’t trust some random person’s LLM to be unbiased and truthful.
I dont. I dont even have a problem with using it to filter out the really terrible sources automatically. But anything further than that is placing too much trust in some guy’s opinion (IMO)
If only you understood how computers dealt with timezones… you’d be amazed how much critical shit in the world ends up being run by “Just one guy we all sort of just trust”.
Im aware of ntp, I’ve had to debug timezone errors before. But labeling which news sources are trustworthy and which arent is inherently politcal in a was timezones arent.
You are claiming the MB/FC is “crap” and at least indirectly accusing it of bias or poor methodology. Since I have a subscription to Ground.News I’m able to see how MB/FCs assessments compare against other outlets doing the same job such as Ad Fontes, Wikipedia, and others and MB/FC seems to be reasonably consistent with their peers.
So do you have any concrete examples of MB/FC getting it wrong or being wildly different than their peers?
The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.
Centrist Bias
The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.
Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.
Questionable Fact Checking
Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.
“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”
Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.
Both Ground News and Media Bias are tuned to a very US-centric vision of what is left or right, which means that thanks to this right biased Overton window, anything they classify as left would probably be considered center in Europe. Unfortunately, said window is also slinding to the right in Europe under the influence of European right leaders calling anything left of center “far-left”, see for example : Macron.
I wish people would stop linking to this crap, it is literally just what one individual American centrist thinks of sources. In his methodology he explicitly states centrist (from an American standpoint) sources are intrinsically more credible.
It’s not ‘one guy’. It’s him and a team of volunteers/contractors.
Doesn’t make them perfect, but I defy you to find better for this use.
It’s a bot and this comment will be under every single submission here now. Check the pinned post.
I know its a bot, I still think its missleading to promote this one guy’s opinion like he is a font of truth.
It’s easier to judge the credibility of one guy than a thousand guys.
To be fair, I don’t much attention to it either, and you can always block the bot so that you don’t see it. I already blocked that AI summary bot because I don’t trust some random person’s LLM to be unbiased and truthful.
If you have a better source of both bias and credibility with an API that lets us automate it, I’m open!
If you have a good source that’s not biased, let’s see it?
Because if not, why automate introducing a bias.
MB/FC is a good source that is not biased.
It is so biased!
Have you ever looked at the reviews it gives papers? Like the actual reasoning? It’s biased as fuck.
I dont. I dont even have a problem with using it to filter out the really terrible sources automatically. But anything further than that is placing too much trust in some guy’s opinion (IMO)
If only you understood how computers dealt with timezones… you’d be amazed how much critical shit in the world ends up being run by “Just one guy we all sort of just trust”.
Im aware of ntp, I’ve had to debug timezone errors before. But labeling which news sources are trustworthy and which arent is inherently politcal in a was timezones arent.
You are claiming the MB/FC is “crap” and at least indirectly accusing it of bias or poor methodology. Since I have a subscription to Ground.News I’m able to see how MB/FCs assessments compare against other outlets doing the same job such as Ad Fontes, Wikipedia, and others and MB/FC seems to be reasonably consistent with their peers.
So do you have any concrete examples of MB/FC getting it wrong or being wildly different than their peers?
Wrote this over on the announcement post for this bot:
Just looking over the methodology it’s clear that it has it’s own biases:
American Bias
The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.
Centrist Bias
The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.
Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.
The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.
Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.
Questionable Fact Checking
Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.
The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasn’t found to fail any fact checks.
The ADL was found to be so unreliable on it’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.
“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”
Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.
Both Ground News and Media Bias are tuned to a very US-centric vision of what is left or right, which means that thanks to this right biased Overton window, anything they classify as left would probably be considered center in Europe. Unfortunately, said window is also slinding to the right in Europe under the influence of European right leaders calling anything left of center “far-left”, see for example : Macron.