Comment on Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?

• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Okay.

  Take their methodology.

  Work through it.

  You can’t because most of the “rigorous definitions “ aren’t shared.

  You still haven’t explained what “factually consistent” means in a method that’s repeated and able to be applied regularly.

  Their methodology as posted is far too vague to adequately consider their ability to provide consistent neutral ratings.

  How are “loaded” words evaluated? Is there a table of words that are considered “loaded”? Personal feeling? We don’t know. We know what some of them are, since they’re mentioned on specific articles.

  But that isn’t a consistent or “rigorously defined” criteria. So what is the “rigorously defined criteria”- and why is that not published?

  Do you not see how that’s ripe for abuse?

  source

  • finley@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I have used their methodology and worked through it. I find no fault with it.

    And finally, you’re the one who makes claims that there is some problem with their methodology, yet you have not demonstrated that at all. I’ll let you demonstrated is that you happen to disagree with it and that you don’t like it. If you wish to prove your point, you’re gonna need evidence for that, and all of your carrying on here I have not seen the shred of that.

    source

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I have used their methodology and worked through it. I find no fault with it.

      So then, It should be simple for you to tell us what rate of error is acceptable to still qualify as “factually consistent”.

      This is like giving. Recipe without measures, or a “how to build a shed” guide without describing how to build the pad it sits on.

      And finally, you’re the one who makes claims that there is some problem with their methodology, yet you have not demonstrated that at all.

      I haven’t? Huh. Interesting. So all those “rigorously defined criteria”, those are public? We know how they’re actually evaluated?

      We know what error rate is “Factually Consistent”, we know how they treat “misleading” tags or “misrepresentation” tags in their factual rating?

      I mean in my looking for an example where they clearly do not have a consistent methodology, I found it the first place I looked. (Okay, so I knew VOA news and Al Jazeera are both state owned propaganda outlets.)

      They’re both inherently biased. Yet one is “least biased” just because its owners happen to the us gov? Oh look. Here’s a third gov-owned propaganda outlet. Gee, what makes VOa special?

      Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

      No but the open discourse here and in similar communities is. Me blocking it just hides it from me. MBFC is being used, in part, to evaluate sources for articles.

      It’s a third party, private-interest group whose methods aren’t clear and self-evidently inconsistently applied.

      Even if they were demonstrably always right… that’s a problem, because sometimes the best source/news agency to talk about a given issue sucks.

      Sometimes the discussion is about awareness of how shitty “that rag” is.

      source

      • finley@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        i’m not here to waste time trying to convince of you of something about which you’ve clearly made up your mind, since others have shared plenty of facts, made great arguments, and all you do is keep shifting the goalposts.

        not to mention: it’s not for me to prove your claims-- that’s on you, and you haven’t. all i have claimed is that i’m satisfied, and the only proof you need of that is my word ont he matter.

        so, once again, since you haven’t proven anything other than you disagree with it, i suggest you simply block it and move on with your life. you have no greater authority to decide what is or is not a “reliable source” than MBFC, but at least they show their work.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Hegar@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

      That's not sufficient.

      A private trust assessing company shouldn't be given free space in an open public forum as though it's assessments we're something the general public should be aware of. If you trust it you can go seek it's assessment off site. But this company shouldn't be allowed to spam the fediverse of all places.

      source

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Especially when spamming a donate to us link

        source
      • finley@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        By that logic, no privately owned media company would be able to post links here at all. Because your description pretty much describes all of them too, from the AP to CNN to Fox News.

        And why should you get to set the standards for what everyone else sees? If that’s what you want, start your own instance and ban this bot. But this bot was put in place by the instance admins, and they get to do what they want on their own server. You not liking it or happening to disagree with it gives you no right to tell them what to do.

        source