There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Media Bias Fact Check - Automation

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 check context comments and adds 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 💖

circuscritic , (edited )

Oh, lovely. Ministry of Truth Bots…

This is predicated on the false assumption that those organizations are neutral arbitrators of facts, but they aren’t.

They might have a better gauge on reality than OAN, or PatriotEageNews.ru, but that doesn’t mean platform moderators should present them as if they are the source of universal truth.

People can be critical of posts and comments and their sources, without the heavy hand of moderation from the privatized Ministry of Truth.

We don’t even have to look very far back to see how platform level “fact checking” systems are used and abused to silence and suppress information goes against mainstream narratives or is politically damaging.

Rooki OP ,
@Rooki@lemmy.world avatar

Its better to have some “fact checking” than the “trust me bro” system.

We all know all “fact checking” systems have humans behind it, those humans can have biases, dislikes or do mistakes. But thats the reason why we should not have such system is not good. Its the viewers discretion to believe into the fact/bias checks of the given page. We are just giving our best effort to simplify the view.

Then i give you the recommendation to block the bot, if you dont like it.

circuscritic ,

You’re putting your moderators hands on scale that far outweighs any community/user input into the validity of information discussed here.

On a completely unrelated note, did you know that Hamas went on a baby beheading spree on Oct. 7?

I know this because I read it on MSN.com, and your MediaBiasFactCheck said that MSN.com has a HIGH FACTUAL RATING

Anyone is free to rip apart my comment, and that source, but that job becomes more difficult when bots that have been anointed as bias and fact checkers, contradict them in any way, or are themselves biased.

TrippyFocus ,

I think having this post isn’t a great idea because you are just assuming the websites bias are legit. At the very least there needs to be a lot of warnings in the bots post about the websites biases and the methodology they use so the reader can come to their own conclusion.

Just looking over the methodlogy it’s clear that it has it’s own biases:

American Bias

The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.

Centrist Bias

The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.

Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.

The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.

Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.

Questionable Fact Checking

Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.

The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasn’t found to fail any fact checks.

The ADL was found to be so unreliable on it’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.

“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”

Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.

HelixDab2 ,

While I love the idea, I KNOW that there are certain groups that will refuse to accept that factual information. Tankies, for instance, will refuse to accept any criticism of their preferred sources. (As will Russian-asset Jimmy Dore.) Far-right conservatives will do the same, only on the other end of the spectrum.

Varyk ,

Great idea

Jaderick ,

I love this, but I would like to state that Media Bias Fact Check seems to have a pro-Israel bias.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/

  • Overall, we rate Mondoweiss as Left Biased and Questionable due to the blending of opinion with news, the promotion of pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist propaganda, occasional reliance on poor sources, and hate group designation by third-party pro-Israel advocates.

I feel like “blending of opinion with news” and “occasional reliance on poor sources” is all that really need be said.

hotpot8toe ,

Mondoweiss is literal propaganda tho

Limelight8077 ,

Read the lengthy discussion about them on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_427#What_is_the_reliability_of_Mondoweiss?

Jaderick ,

It’s about the bias rating. Using explicitly biased sources when rating a source makes for a bad rating.

Jumuta ,

could you have the bot automatically unvote its posts (make it 0) so it goes under new comments when sorted by votes?

the spoiler thing doesn’t work on eternity and it kinda hides everything under it being so long

catloaf ,

I wish bot comments didn’t count toward the comment count, too. It’s annoying to see “1 comment” and then you look and it’s just this or the summary bot.

AlexanderESmith ,

This about about to spawn so many sidebar threads xD

It's either going to be awesome, or hilarious. Probably both.

Any guesses for how long until the "we've disabled the bot for further testing and review" post? My bet is a month.

Sami ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

That’s just introducing 2 more sources of bias

Rooki OP ,
@Rooki@lemmy.world avatar

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

Sami ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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.

Rooki OP ,
@Rooki@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Carrolade ,

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 ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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 ,

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

Sami ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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

Carrolade ,

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.

HelixDab2 ,

Uh, you know that the information is right there, right? It even says where their sources of funding are: ads that are based on your browser history (e.g., shit like AdSense), individual donations, and individual memberships.

Sami ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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.

Varyk ,

Both sides? Geeet outta here.

Sami ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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

Varyk ,

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 ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Sami@lemmy.zip avatar

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

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

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.

gedaliyah ,
@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

This will be great to have. Thanks!

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks for this Rooki!

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot ,

Ground News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)### Ground News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. > Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
> Country: Canada
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/ground-news/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:

Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)### Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. > Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:

Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)### Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. > Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

Deebster ,
@Deebster@infosec.pub avatar

Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Good, I guess.

Hubi ,
@Hubi@feddit.org avatar

https://feddit.org/pictrs/image/11e58cf9-e51c-4026-a32f-5c3870d83e45.jpeg

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •