It pops up all the time, it’s a waste of time and I’m sure it has been used countless of times to discard some piece of information. It doesn’t add up anything productive to the comments, people who comment don’t even say anything they actually think they just “did you know that MBFC says this so it has to be truth?” I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Sounds good
fwiw I would be in support of this. It’s normal for forums to have rules against low-quality discussion.
But muh Media Bias/Fact Check says it checks out!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/
Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.
Van Zandt is some hobbyist who was in the right place at the right time: the “post-truth” moment of Clinton’s loss to Trump and the string of Russiagate conspiracy theories and Kellyanne Conway’s alternative facts and the Cambridge Analytica hysteria.
The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:
The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.
The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
I said “these kinds of graphs,” of which there are many https://duckduckgo.com/?q=media+bias+chart&iax=images&ia=images
But you’ve sparked an idea for an interesting project: use MBFC’s API to create one of these graphs from their own data. Doing a little googling, it seems that scripts and data dumps aren’t hard to come by.
I think armchair media analyst Dave M. Van Zandt is going on vibes. I don’t think he understands corporate & think tank media. Does he know who Walter Lippman or Edward Bernays were, or what the Council on Foreign Relations (“least biased” 🤡) is or made note of its prominent media members? Does he know about the Powell memorandum or the Trilateral Commission’s report, The Crisis of Democracy?
No results found for
site:mediabiasfactcheck.com "manufacturing consent".I’ve seen The Grayzone debunk the New York Times’ lies many times, and yet:
Also, in what universe is the neoliberal, anti-labor NYT center-left? And if the Grayzone in the ultraviolet territory, where does that leave the explicitly Communist Monthly Review, outside of MBFC’s Overton window? Surprise, it’s to the right of it:
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.
This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
Should have a standardised response to MBFC getting posted, like the one Davel posted.
I don’t think a bot is worth for that, no one will read it anyway, just delete the comments.
Mbfc is just a score of how aligned with the empire propaganda machine an outlet is, nothing more. People who take it seriously should not be taken seriously themselves. If you need a site to tell you what kind of information you are able to see, regardless of you agreeing with the info or not, you should not be giving opinions online
Can you post a few real examples? Not sure I fully understand what youre aiming at.
Right now it sounds like youre trying to impliment censorship.
https://lemmy.ml/post/41019382/23036391
This happens every few days, all the time. Low effort comment with no scientific back up. Yes, I am trying to censor the neoliberal outlook from being presented as reality in this community.
Oh yea that sounds like AI propaganda bullshit.
Thanks for sharing, I havent actually seen any of these yet but would support a ban.
AFAIK most posts have a single source news disclaimer and stuff like that anyway so its redundant to begin with.
That was my exact thought, it reads like AI, even tho I’m sure the person who commented did so in their full good will. Everyone could say some news outlet is propaganda, and they are right, most news outlets are sponsored by whatever government their company resides.
Those comments sound great. Why are they an issue? Many if the best comments are basically data not personal point of view
The idea that something is not biased based on the fact that “it shouldn’t be neither too lefty nor too righty” is absurd, it has a bias for “centrists” who believe they live on the fence but then you hear them speak they are rightists. I could go on, it’s basically trash, low effort strawman to discredit possible factual information.
I see you don’t let emotion cloud your judgements…
Signed a disgusting centerist
No emotion here, I just like to use to use dysphemisms.
Ooooh. This is lemmy.ml, oops. I deleted ask anything from here since this group was tiring. But now I can guess why people are upset about the comment even though no one took the time to answer and give a few examples… they just took time to say how upsetting the site was
Everyone replied to you in more than one way and there are at least 4 or 5 examples of people doing these lazy strawmen. You’re the one who, as you showed, doesn’t bother reading or thinking critically. Imagine being offended because I oppose using some rando’s POV on news as factual evidence.
I propose you a brain game. I will create my own media bias fact fuck, and everything that’s not lefty is considered biased.
at least 4 or 5 examples of people doing these lazy strawmen.
I missed these. Where were the links to past comments? Or are you counting generic arguments, because those don’t paint a very clear picture so I didn’t count them. And they seemed very much like the same argument with different words: for some reason they imply sources in towards the centre of the political spectrum are without bias and for some reason that means people don’t read them critically when this is pointed out.
I will create my own media bias fact fuck, and everything that’s not lefty is considered biased.
I get that from what I guess your views are but it’s also not particularly equivalent. Especially for the US media landscape and for better or worse a lot of these checks seem to have their roots there.
The second link is exactly what I was after. Thanks.
Am I misunderstanding the first just after waking up? It seems to be a summary that points to this comment as its example:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/8913172
And that seems to be someone referencing the site while dripping with sarcasm and seems to be making the case that the OP is.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/
Now go read the UNwatch website.
UN Watch utilizes credible sources such as the New York Times, Reuters, and usun.state.gov; however, they also utilize factually Questionable sources such as Cnsnews and the Daily Wire. Story selection mostly favors Israel and holds the same positions as the former right-wing government of Israel.
Wild how it gets to avoid being classified as propaganda by mbfc.
Same reason I’m sure as why radio free Asia isn’t either
You’re going to have to spell out the point you attempted to make
Go back to bed grandpa, your brain is leaking.
