Aurenkin , 4 hours ago (edited 4 hours ago)

The problem is that it doesn’t matter if they publish how they came to their conclusions if how they come to their conclusions is nonsense. Your link is a perfect example. In the bias section there is a paragraph consisting mostly of cruft followed by two sentences attempting to justify a left rating:

Editorially, opinion pieces tend to slightly favor the left, such as this Adopt green hydrogen strategy now, Swiss cantons tell Bern. In general, SWI is fact-based and hold slight left-leaning editorial biases.

One opinion piece on green hydrogen is apparently enough justification for MBFC. I actually can’t even tell if it’s an opinion piece because it doesn’t seem to have the author’s opinion in it anywhere, it’s quoting reporting from elsewhere and a letter.

Doesn’t that seem pretty paper thin? I don’t think they even bother referencing any of the categories from their own methodology in this one.

I feel like I’m the only one that has actually read any of their bias justifications because after you read one I don’t see how can take them seriously at all. Maybe I’m missing something though, or I’m just going mad because lots of folks keep referring to MBFC as a serious organisation.