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…

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I’ve seen MBFC rate sources as “highly credible” that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.

    There days I’m much more of the opinion that it’s best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like

    1. is this information well-sourced?
    2. is there any obvious missing context?
    3. is this information up to date?
    4. what are the likely ideological biases of this writer or publication?
    5. What is the quality of the evidence provided to support the claims made in the article?

    And so on. It’s much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I find it useful at a glance, specifically when I don’t recognize a niche source. There’s a lot of “alt” media under random names. This helps flag them.

      For mainstream, you can easily make your own call. You should be exposed to enough of it.

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

      Would you then be posting your conclusions? Like, if you’re gonna do that work on some of these posts anyway… may as well share.

      • aleph@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.

        These days, I’ll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.

        • otpOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.

          That’s why I like MBFC. It’s a lot of effort, and even if I don’t agree with them on everything, it gives an idea.

          • aleph@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just don’t take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.

            • otpOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, I don’t take it as hard facts, and the bias especially I take with a grain of salt. I think the fact checking reliability part is more important (but also not perfect).