Hi all!

As many of you have noticed, many Lemmy.World communities introduced a bot: @MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world. This bot was introduced because modding can be pretty tough work at times and we are all just volunteers with regular lives. It has been helpful and we would like to keep it around in one form or another.

The !news@lemmy.world mods want to give the community a chance to voice their thoughts on some potential changes to the MBFC bot. We have heard concerns that tend to fall into a few buckets. The most common concern we’ve heard is that the bot’s comment is too long. To address this, we’ve implemented a spoiler tag so that users need to click to see more information. We’ve also cut wording about donations that people argued made the bot feel like an ad.

Another common concern people have is with MBFC’s definition of “left” and “right,” which tend to be influenced by the American Overton window. Similarly, some have expressed that they feel MBFC’s process of rating reliability and credibility is opaque and/or subjective. To address this, we have discussed creating our own open source system of scoring news sources. We would essentially start with third-party ratings, including MBFC, and create an aggregate rating. We could also open a path for users to vote, so that any rating would reflect our instance’s opinions of a source. We would love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as suggestions for sources that rate news outlets’ bias, reliability, and/or credibility. Feel free to use this thread to share other constructive criticism about the bot too.

  • breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    From their methodology:

    Our methodology incorporates findings from credible fact-checkers who are affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Only fact checks from the last five years are considered, and any corrected fact checks do not negatively impact the source’s rating.

    • Five@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Just like every good lie has a little bit of truth in it, MBFC wouldn’t be able to spin its bullshit as well without usurping the credibility of real fact-checking organizations.

      • breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        What an odd form for a mea culpa to take!

        You seemed to care passionately about IFCN fact-checkers doing the fact-checking. It turns out that MBFC agrees with you. Your (feigned) concern has been completely addressed in just the way you’d hoped. A person making that argument in good faith might say, “Oh! Maybe this is a better resource than I thought it was,” or maybe,“I should probably apologize to Rooki for harassing them about something I appear to have just made up.” Instead you just spin it into some other nebulous bullshit and move the goal posts. If you’re not careful, people might begin to suspect that you’re starting with the conclusion and working backwards.

        • Five@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Sorry, no mea culpa. Let me elaborate. Van Zandt claims to value IFCN fact-checkers in his ratings, then he uses that laundered credibility to gatekeep minority and politically inconvenient voices. Here’s a recent example brought to my attention.

          It should be noted that despite no non-partisan fact checkers are listed on MBFC’s site as raising concerns about the The Cradle’s credibility, Van Zandt has arbitrarily placed it in the “Factual Reporting: Mixed” and “Credibility: Medium” categories. The concerns he posits about The Cradle’s 'lack of transparency, poor sourcing," and one-sidedness clearly apply to the weird right-wing guy who makes these opaque decisions about journalistic value.

          If IFCN fact-checkers have issues with sources he’d like to denigrate, he’s happy to list them even if they’ve since been resolved. But they don’t make up the central criteria for his ‘methodology’ as he’d like you to believe. Meanwhile he’s free to make unreferenced claims about the credibility of others that uncareful readers take completely at face value.

          All the concerns I have about The Cradle’s credibility have been developed in spite of MBFC, which is the opposite of what you want if your goal is accountability and media literacy. And thanks to their reliance on this charlatan, LW!news have recently punted what I think is a valuable report.

          • breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sorry, no mea culpa.

            If you think being an unrepentant liar is good for your cred, fill your boots, I guess.

            It should be noted that despite no non-partisan fact checkers are listed on MBFC’s site as raising concerns about the The Cradle’s credibility, Van Zandt has arbitrarily placed it in the “Factual Reporting: Mixed” and “Credibility: Medium” categories. The concerns he posits about The Cradle’s 'lack of transparency, poor sourcing," and one-sidedness clearly apply to the weird right-wing guy who makes these opaque decisions about journalistic value.

            ‘I don’t understand how it works so it’s stupid!’

            1. The Cradle is a rag that’s been banned by Wikipedia for publishing conspiracy theories and for (gasp!) poor sourcing.
            2. If you had read their methodology, you’d know that MBFC wasn’t being arbitrary as lack of transparency and the impact are clearly defined:

            A source is considered to lack transparency if it fails to provide an ‘About’ page or a clear description of its mission. Transparency is further compromised if the ownership of the source is not openly disclosed, including the identification of the parent company and key individuals involved. Additionally, the absence of information about major donors, funding sources, or general revenue generation methods contributes to this lack of transparency. It is essential for the source to at least disclose the country, state, or city of operation and the name of the person responsible (such as the editor). While providing a physical address is not mandatory, meeting some of these transparency criteria is important. Inadequate transparency typically results in the source’s factual reporting rating being reduced by one or two levels, depending on the extent of the shortfall.

            Credibility Levels:

            • High Credibility: A score of 6 or above.
            • Medium Credibility: A score between 3-5 points. Sources lacking an ‘About’ page or ownership information are automatically rated as Medium Credibility.
            • Low Credibility: A score of 0-2 points. Sources rated as Questionable, Conspiracy, or Pseudoscience are automatically classified as Low Credibility.

            This is from the report:

            The Cradle lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership. The domain is registered in the United States.

            Who could’ve seen that rating coming?

            Methodical is the opposite of arbitrary. The reason it seems arbitrary to you is that you don’t understand it. As a bare minimum to be critical of MBFC you should understand how it works, understand their methodology, and probably have read their Wikipedia page. Bonus points for seeing what high quality research says about them (spoiler alert: it says you’re wrong). You’re demanding that people take very seriously your misinterpretations and assumptions about something you don’t understand. How is that a reasonable request?