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.

  • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
    215·
    4 days ago

    Those comments sound great. Why are they an issue? Many if the best comments are basically data not personal point of view

    • ghost_laptop@lemmy.mlOP
      15·
      4 days ago

      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.

    • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
      19·
      3 days ago

      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

      • ghost_laptop@lemmy.mlOP
        6·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
          13·
          3 days ago

          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.

        • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          6·
          3 days ago

          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