Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it’s impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.

To this end, we’ve created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.

As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.

Thanks!

FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team 💖

    • Varyk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Both sides? Geeet outta here.

      • Sami@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

        • Varyk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          I understand your edgy take, but equivocating reliable and consistent mediators that accurately discern real news from propaganda with trash like Infowars as “more bias” is nonsense.

          • Sami@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

            • Varyk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Not entirely and unequivocally avoiding bias every time isn’t the “opposite of avoiding bias”, it’s an example of perfect being the enemy of good.

              There may technically be inherent bias everywhere, but it’s at best useless and in practice harmful and inaccurate to lump MBFC in with grayzone and to equivocate in general.

              Example from 2020:

              “Biden is just another politician, like Trump”

              Technically true that they are both politicians, but without recognizing the difference between Biden and trump, the states wouldn’t have student debt cancellations, no federal minority legal defenses, fifty plus liberally appointed judges, no reversal of the trans ban, no veteran health coverage for toxic exposure, no green new deal, no international climate accords, no healthcare expansion and so on.

              or:

              “who cares, it’s just another plant”, but arugula is a great salad green while a bite of foxglove can kill you.

              It’s important to recognize the shades of grey and distinguish one from another.

              How fucked is it that such a poorly written book has ruined the extremely useful phrase “shades of grey”?

              • Sami@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

                This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

                And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

                Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

                CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

                So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

                • Varyk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Removed by mod

                • Varyk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  “good is not the enemy of perfect”

                  Incorrect quote.

                  Your problem is making “perfect the enemy of good.”

                  You are

                  1. mistaking bias check for news reporting

                  2. making perfection the enemy of the good

                  3. arguing that mostly doesn’t mean mostly(spoiler, mostly does mean mostly)

                  4. “this is clearly an ideological decision”: No, your examples provided are both conclusions based on consistent objective standards, the opposite of ideology.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, that everyone make a better picture. Instead of getting shouted at by one manipulative entity.

      • Sami@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it’s a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          4 months ago

          Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets I haven’t even tried to look for their about page or an FAQ.

          ftfy

          Not quite as opaque as it gets, certainly.

          • Sami@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

            Yeah, looks great to me.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s a fair criticism. It is not opacity, however. The full real name of your lead guy is transparency.

              • Sami@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it’s just a bunch of fake names on a page.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  21
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That’s true of all names. At a certain point you can simply decide to trust nothing if that’s what you want. Plenty of people do, though personally I think that’s foolish due to the pointless nihilism it results in.

          • Sami@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m not talking about their source of funding but their qualifications in making claims with such broad implications. It looks like the pet project of some guy and couple faceless names who do not even claim any meaningful professional or academic experience.

            Here’s an example from your link:

            Jim resides in Shreveport, Louisiana with his two boys and is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction. Jim is a registered independent voter that tends to lean conservative on most issues.

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              MBFC is entirely the opinion of some guy and his team of mystery helpers.

              It’s pure garbage and one look into it shows how pathetic the biases are.

        • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          4 months ago

          Have you ever investigated every news page for its bias? With no pay? I guess not. In the end there is a human doing that manually.

          Because of that we added the ground.news search url, so that if you didnt believed it you can get other news pages thoughts on this article.