Your condescending tone certainly makes you an unattractive conversation partner.
They are funded by advertising. Do you prefer your media to be opaquely funded, or you just prefer media that comes directly from certain states?
Who cares if it’s funded by advertisements? Why is that relevant? I would rather open funding by sponsors I can see than dark money or anonymous donors.
I’ve acknowledged the criticisms for the site, and have only made the argument that it’s a useful tool to use for media literacy. It’s based on US media, and approaches things based on the political circumstances of (primarily) the US and the anglosphere.
I’ve also acknowledged that human bias and inconsistencies exist, and again encouraged its use -alongside critical thinking and media literacy to help with evaluating sources. I. This particular case it simply helped to illustrate that this “news” is just Syrian propaganda that’s being repeated by other governments that have good cause to criticize the United States.
Yes, MBFC it has a bias towards western political bias, because those are the circumstances within which the room was created. That’s a drawback, and, again, something that needs to be accounted for when using the tool.
You have done a fine job at reiterating your points. But none of it is a damning assessment of MBFC. You’ve just proven that it’s not perfect. Something I agree with.
These are flaws that need to be taken into account when using it, but it doesn’t make to tool useless.
But the fact remains that it is considered a reliable enough source to have qualified support for it on various university resource lists.