Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal

Chinese and Philippine vessels collided on Monday during a confrontation near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, the two countries said.

Both countries blamed each other for the incident near the Sabina Shoal.

China and the Philippines have had repeated confrontations in the vital waterway in recent months, including around a warship grounded years ago by Manila on the contested Second Thomas Shoal that hosts a garrison. Beijing has continued to press its claims to almost the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling that its assertion has no legal basis.

  • Varyk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    the MBFC rating is based on how factual the articles are, not the frequency of the articles.

    Why should the size of the news organization matter when you’re assessing bias?

    the statistics you’re concerned with seem irrelevant to whether or not a news source is credible.

    You’re incorrect about mbfc equating these two sites .

    lets look at what MBFC actually says about the guardian:

    These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

    Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years. Detailed Report Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

    and breitbart:

    "QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

    Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims. Detailed Report Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY"

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes. You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        “If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes.”

        Big if.

        are you making up a series of interdependent assumptions or do you have real data to look at?

        “You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?”

        No, what gives you the impression those two organizations are equally credible news sources?

        Because boy, are you in for a surprise.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          As pointed out above me, MBFC seems to think so. It gives both a MIXED rating. I don’t really get what you’re trying to argue here? Am I misunderstanding something?

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            i think you are, yes.

            I’m trying to establish if your multiple assumptions above are based in fact or just a few somethings you’ve made up, which I’d hardly call an argument.

            It sounds like you’re saying “If x were true, then y cant be trusted”.

            Is x true?

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              I shouldn’t have to be the one to provide evidence, because MBFC is the site that is making the claim that Breitbart is on the same level of factuality as the BBC. They say that both had numerous factual errors over the years. I’m not disputing that, the BBC is not great when it comes to many issues. But the BBC consists of several broadcasting channels, radio and news outlets. They publish several dozen pieces a day. Breitbart has nowhere near that volume. I was making the point that volume does play a big role, because for credibility, it is the relative accuracy that counts, not the absolute number of mistakes. If you don’t see that point, we can stop right here, the discussion would be pointless.

              The thing you are asking for, me providing specific counts for mistakes in reporting, is next to impossible. Still, here is an independent report, focused on statistics as reported by the BBC, that finds that in their sample about 4% of statistics were further challenged, so the number of false statistics reported is likely about that number:

              https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/stats_impartiality/content_analysis.pdf

              As for Breitbart, and I can’t believe I have to spell this out, here is their introduction on Wikipedia:

              Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]

              If you think that these two are even remotely similar or deserve to be in the same category of factuality, I don’t know what else to say to you.

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                BBC is rated pretty high, as i recall.

                Yea, BBC is rated high center-left:

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

                Breitbart is rated Mixed far-right, two rankings lower as a “questionable source”

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart

                again, these are simple assumptions you’re making that you could have checked before making such a stand.

                everything you said is wrong because you couldn’t be bothered to check the facts.

                • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I feel like a total idiot now, some time between reading the original comment and my reply my brain substituted BBC for The Guardian, sorry for wasting both our times on that :'D

                  My criticism still stands, because it does rate The Guardian as mixed as well.

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    no sweat. The mbfc meter is more nuanced than it appears.

                    “mixed” is one metric.

                    As for news credibility based on bias, spin and fact-checking,

                    Breitbart has “Low Credibility”

                    and

                    The Guardian has “Medium Credibility”