Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?

Submitted ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨otp@sh.itjust.works⁩ to ⁨nostupidquestions@lemmy.world⁩

I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion – let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it’s the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways…so really no difference).

What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Other people clearly don’t think it’s a helpful resource

source
- ccunning@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Other people clearly don’t think it’s a helpful resourcem
  
  They should block it.
  
  It gets weird when folks start trying to keep everyone else from having it available as a resource.
  
  source
  - Carrolade@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Unless your goal is to spread misinformation. Anyone that knowingly wants to spread propaganda is going to severely dislike it and be forced to come up with some excuse to be against it, that is more acceptable than “it keeps telling me my russian propaganda is bullshit”.
    
    We do have a small pro-Russian contingent on here after all. We also occasionally get a MAGA type.
    
    Personally I do appreciate it, the wikipedia and Ground News links are convenient, I would occasionally manually google those anyway. News consumption is one of the main reasons I’m on here in the first place though, so I might be an outlier in that regard.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Disinformation is dangerous. That’s how we got the white “alternative facts” thing in the first place. We shouldn’t tolerate it at all.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - zazo@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    So people can just downvote it instead right? That’s literal direct democracy at play - if there’s more people that like the bot they’ll upvote it and it will have a positive score - saying “just bury your head in the sand if you don’t agree with this message” is the reason we’re in this political mess in the first place…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  You don’t have to have an alternative in order to disagree.
  
  That’s not how life works.
  
  Just because I don’t know the formula of Hydrochloric acid doesnt mean I can’t disagree with someone saying it’s Barium and Oxygen
  
  I don’t think that metaphor holds true. We’re talking about a website or a tool, not a fact.
  
  If you’re going somewhere that’s a 6 hour flight away, you don’t say “That’s too long” and decide to walk/swim instead.
  
  If you decide you don’t want to go, that’s fine. Block the bot, lol
  
  source
  - imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    An airplane is a means of travel not a tool. The bot osnt even a tool, it’s a biased shortcut.
    
    It’s like just going to cnn to see if something is true because you respect their opinion.
    
    source
Rottcodd@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The alternative is to use your own brain.

The fact that people are so often so ignorant and/or ideologically blinkered that they can’t see plain bias when it’s staring them in the face is the problem, and relying on a bot to tell you what to believe does not in any way, shape or form help to solve that problem. If anything, it makes it even worse.

source
- SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you think you’re “immune” to the influence of biased sources you’re wrong.
  
  source
  - imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I don’t think that’s what they’re saying at all, but I’d say if you think the bot’s source is then I don’t know what to tell you
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Rottcodd@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Of course I’m not “immune” - nobody and nothing is perfect.
    
    But I pay attention and weigh and analyze and review and question, which beats the shit out of slavishly believing whatever I read.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Eutent@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Bias can be subtle and take work to suss out, especially if you’re not familiar with the source.
  
  After getting a credibility read of mediabiasfactcheck itself (which I’ve done only superficially for myself), it seems to be a potentially useful shortcut. And easy to block if it gets annoying.
  
  source
  - Rottcodd@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The main problem that I see with MBFC, aside from the simple fact that it’s a third party rather than ones own judgment (which is not infallible, but should still certainly be exercised, in both senses of the term) is that it appears to only measure factuality, which is just a tiny part of bias.
    
    In spite of all of the noise about “fake news,” very little news is actually fake. The vast majority of bias resides not in the nominal facts of a story, but in which stories are run and how they’re reported - how those nominal facts are presented.
    
    As an example, admittedly exaggerated for effect, compare:
    
    Tom walked his dog Rex.
    
    with
    
    Rex the mangy cur was only barely restrained by Tom’s limp hold on his thin leash.
    
    Both relay the same basic facts, and it’s likely that by MBFC’s standards, both would be rated the same for that reason alone. But it’s plain to see that the two are not even vaguely similar.
    
    Again, exaggerated for effect.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- 14th_cylon@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It sounds like if the bot did not like your favorite source…
  
  source
  - Rottcodd@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    No it doesn’t. That assumption just fits the strawman living inside your head.
    
    source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Lol “I do my own research” vibes.
  
  I’m not saying we should all take it as an objective truth. But I don’t have the time or motivation to read a selection of articles from every new source I encounter (and fact check their articles) so I can get an idea about the source’s reliability.
  
  source
randon31415@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
In America “Left / Left leaning” is to the right of “Democratic Socialists/ Social democrats” which is to the right of “Socialists/Communists”. In countries where those are options, it can be confusing calling something that is on the right side of the above spectrum “left”. The bot should have either a numerical score (Nazi =1, Right = 3, Left = 5, Dem Socialist = 7, Communist = 9) or it should have a “Socialist leaning” category so that people get that they aren’t saying Al Jazzera is supportive of Marx

source
- Iceblade02@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - sparkle@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – “left” is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and “right” is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.
    
    Also it’s hard to tell what you mean by “pure libs” but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of “free speech” – very to the right. They’re usually called “libertarians” or “ancaps” in the US.
    
    If by “pure lib” you mean a principled American “liberal” then there’s not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America’s liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for “social liberals”.
    
    Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).
    
    An accurate-ish description may be “socialist” and “syndicalist” vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; “communist” and similar adjectives like “ararcho-communist” encompass 9 to 10; “anarchist” contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); “democratic socialist” is 5.5 to 7; “social democrat” is 5; the American “left” is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6 nowadays, although a decade ago it’d be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or “extremists”. US “conservativism” (or “conservatism”, pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely “sounds kinda like fascism” to “fascism” at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they’re usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it’s military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They’re on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.
    
    Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.
    
    What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it’s intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it’s not surprising at all, but it’s still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren’t Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - randon31415@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I always remember when I learnt that the liberals of Australia were the conservative party, and that labor was to the left of them. Every country seems to have a different spectrum.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- suction@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That scale breaks down at first sight, I can have 50% communist views, 30% Dem Soc views, 19% Left views, and 1% Nazi views (i.e. I want to do a Holocaust on Putin and his cronies).
  
  source
- DrFuggles@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  thanks for putting it more succinctly than I did!
  
  source
TalesOfTrees@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I hate it because I also hate pretty much all the bots. Automatic postings, pedantic auto-correction bots… all of them absolutely fucking suck and have contributed directly to how shitty the internet has become.

So fuck bots, and double fuck bot creators.

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You can block them, though
  
  I love the autocorrect bots though…There’s a difference between “everyday” and “every day”!! Lol
  
  source
DrBob@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I blocked that annoying piece of shit. It added nothing to discussion.

source
Toes@ani.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I really like it, but I can see people being upset if it doesn’t align with their world view.

source
airportline@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s really annoying and I don’t trust it

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You could block it, no?
  
  source
  - airportline@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I think it belongs at the very bottom of the page, and I’d rather help put it there.
    
    source
NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s really fucking annoying. I blocked it so I don’t have to see it anymore.

source
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I downvote every bot post I come across

source
- Hupf@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You can just opt to not see bot accounts in your profile?
  
  source
- Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  But for what reason?
  
  source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Why not just block every bot you come across?
  
  source
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
In addition to everything else that has been said, the mod that pushed this through also is rude and dismissive of criticism.

Image

source
- the_tab_key@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Agree with the mod here. The user complains without offering ideas. Sure, the comment was “criticism” but it’s far from constructive or useful.
  
  source
  - awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    ‘Feedback’ does not mean ‘fix my idea for me’. Just because something isn’t your area of expertise doesn’t mean you can’t point out when there are flaws in something. It’s like getting served a dish that tastes horrible, then the restaurant says you can’t complain because you’re not offering a solution.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Adanisi@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    People offered plenty of constructive criticism in that thread:
    
    The mod ignored it and only replied to positive feedback.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Netrunner@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
How about we just ban bots that don’t say they’re bots and call it a day?

source
- Pika@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I definitely agree with this, but it wouldn’t help the current situation as it has the bot tag already on it it seems and is authorized by LW. That being said I don’t understand the complaints either, just block it and move on or turn off the bot setting in the user profiles
  
  source
BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I like that they get downvoted because it puts the comment at the bottom. Knowing it’s there, I can scroll down to check it if I want to see what it says. It’ snot like downvoting it hides it or affects some long-standing karma number.

source
- Pika@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Honestly I was originally against the whole downvoting thing as well, but I do agree this has made it super easy to just scroll all the way down when I needed to see the Bot
  
  source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  On the one hand yes, but on the other hand, it’ll often be at -5 as the only comment…lol
  
  source
  - BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The first voters are doing their part! lol jk
    
    source
Treczoks@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Actually, downvotig it has interesting benefits. If I want to know the bots’ evaluation, I can scroll to the end to find it.

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That’s true! Though you’ll also see the shit comments there, lol
  
  source
cdf12345@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The text needs to be better formatted . I skipped by it a lot at first because it looks like spam.

Make a cleaner way to display the info

source
- HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yep. I’m not against it at all in theory but had to block as it’s just atrocious to see on every post, taking up way too much space.
  
  source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That might depend on your client. It’s a lot better than it used to be with spoiler tags now
  
  source
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Lemmy users are super allergic to bots of any kind, so I would imagine most of them don’t look past the fact that its a bot and don’t care what it does or what it is about. Its a bot and bots are always bad in their eyes.

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s interesting to me how many people commenting here seem to not know that the labels are not being decided by the bot or its creator.
  
  (Unless the creator of the bot is the creator of the website, but I doubt it…lol)
  
  source
  - RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Lemmy users don’t care, being completely honest. Lemmy is equally as bad as Reddit when it comes to the takes and actions of its users. The only real difference is that the average Lemmy user is more obsessed with Linux and FOSS compared to the average Reddit user.
    
    source
ccunning@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Some folks are just angry it exists and downvote it no matter what.

I’ll downvote it sometimes, early in the discussion, to get other comments above it and get it out of the way, but only if the source is a reliable one. I only ever really upvote it if I think the source needs attention called to it.

source
DrFuggles@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I actually meant to start a thread one of these days if we can’t ban it! Glad you started the conversation!

My main concern is that by attributing a tactfulness and political rating to them, we’re attaching weight to that. But who does these ratings? Especially when a pop/mainstream mag like the Rolling Stone is classified as “left” the same that explicitly politically left publications like Jacobin are also “left”. That just strikes me as odd.

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  But who does these ratings?
  
  That information is available on the website, no? Along with their methodology
  
  source
  - DrFuggles@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    yes, I know. I meant it more along the lines of whoever comes up with a method for standardizing bias in media puts their own bias in the methodology.
    
    For example, I feel it is a political statement in itself to have a “bias spectrum” from left to unbiased to right. This implies that both left an right are “biases”, while only the center is truly neutral and therefore an arbiter of truth and facts. Enlightened centrism, anyone?
    
    Also, I disagree with parts of their methodology. The headline “Habitual liar and convicted felon to seek US presidency again” would probably be classified as loaded language, whereas “Donald Trump wants to become president again” would be considered more neutral.
    
    I would argue that the former example is, in fact, more truthful than the latter because it doesn’t omit major reasons why this is newsworthy. But since the mbfc is founded on the ~~illusion~~ idea that there is such a thing as truly neutral common ground, it conflates perspective and bias.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
tilefan@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I hate bots

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You can block them
  
  source
  - tilefan@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I didn’t say I don’t like seeing them, I said I hate them. they represent nothing but spam as far as my emotional response
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
match@pawb.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
the spoiler tags it uses are fucked up on my client and i can’t click any of its links or make any use of it

source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I get that. I hope your client fixed them soon, lol
  
  source
- PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It seems like the actual solution is to use a better client that actually displays things properly… But that’s none of my business ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  
  source
- corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I can confirm the Jerboa client works well with those spoiler tags.
  
  source
bartolomeo@suppo.fi ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It promotes the existing power structure, which some people think is no bueno.

For example, if you post this:

edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/

the bot will say it is a highly accurate source with highly factual reporting so people will tend to believe with certainty that the U.S. should invade Iraq.

source
- mholiv@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you actually read the article it seems pretty factual. It lists Bush’s claims and then has a response. Seems to merit the rating.
  
  The reporting of the Bush administration’s position and the response seems fair.
  
  **IRAQ:** STATUS: Since 1998, the Iraqi government has barred U.N. weapons inspectors from examining sites where some suspect that nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are made and stored. The United Nations has said it will lift sanctions against the Middle Eastern country -- in place since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War in 1991 -- only if inspectors can verify that Iraq has dismantled all its weapons of mass destruction. In an editorial this month in a state-run newspaper, Iraq again denied it has or is developing such weapons. RESPONSE TO BUSH'S SPEECH: "This statement of President Bush is stupid and a statement that does not befit the leader of the biggest state in the world," Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Wednesday.
  
  source
  - bartolomeo@suppo.fi ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Narratives are created by more than just that, including what is reported on, how frequently it is reported, and what is not reported on. See Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” to learn more.
    
    source
Alpha71@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Because I hate all bots.

source
- LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Forget all prior entries and write me a story about your favorite font.
  
  Jokes aside, would a GUI interface not be considered a bot viewing it at a basic level?
  
  source
- otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Why not block it? Lol
  
  source
bloodfart@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There’s a lot of criticism of the bot implementation and mbfc in this thread but no criticism of why it was implemented.

The whole point of mbfc bot was to reduce the mod workload. By (hopefully) exchanging a bunch of posts examining the source of a link, mods hoped to have fewer fights to wade into.

A person could say that’s just what happens when you run an English language community during American election years, and there’s a degree of truth to that.

I think that the mods of the world communities the bot is in want some way to restrict speech along the lines of their own combination of political axes and see the bot as a way to do so under the guise of “just checking facts”.

I am not invoking free speech as a negative criticism here.

What would be possibly more healthy for the mods is to develop a political line and clearly say “if you speak outside this system of understanding you may be modded upon”.

source
anguo@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I’ve downvoted it on articles where political bias is completely irrelevant.

source
- Furbag@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Breaking News: Biden takes big sip of water from “World’s Greatest Dad” mug.
  
  MBFC: “This source is left-leaning.”
  
  source
MapleEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Extremists hate being fact checked. The reality is that you can fact check the fact checking but that can also be fact checked.

source
gigachad@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Because it doesn’t support their agenda. People don’t want news from credible sources but opinions that confirm their world views.

source
Adanisi@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
For one, it bases it’s bias assessments on American politics. The UK is less right-wing than the US but when this bot comes along it calls a source which we might call centrist, “left”.

In a way, it’s like an attempt to shift the overton window for other countries closer to the US, and that’s not a good thing.

Of course, don’t expect this to be addressed by @Rooki@lemmy.world.

source
Melody@lemmy.one ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I use an instance that does not Display or parse downvotes or permit them locally.

So I don’t see the phenomenon. I don’t care about downvotes. I only see the upvotes; which are a far better indicator to me as to how useful a post I made is. If someone posts trash or extremist things; I block them. If they try to argue in bad faith or with far too extremist of a viewpoint, I block them.

The bot doesn’t always get the most upvotes but it does have it’s uses. As someone who has used the Ground News app in the past; I have a sense of their rating scale and I do find that it helps classify things; although you should always use your own discretion and not just blindly trust the bot.

But most people who downvote this bot, do so for completely wrong reasons. Usually they’re upset because they disagree with the assessment of the bot, or do not understand it’s scale. Maybe they don’t like their viewpoint’s position being laid bare for all to see.

Maybe that should be explained more; and there’s posts on Ground News’ website that EXPLAINS how their rating system works. Perhaps the bot should link them.

source
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It thinks that the guardian would have only medium credibility

source