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…

    • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
      173·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think that’s what they’re saying at all, but I’d say if you think the bot’s source is then I don’t know what to tell you

    • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
      148·
      3 months ago

      Of course I’m not “immune” - nobody and nothing is perfect.

      But I pay attention and weigh and analyze and review and question, which beats the shit out of slavishly believing whatever I read.

        • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
          98·
          3 months ago

          The only competition here is between relying on ones own judgment vs. relying on a third party.

            • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
              86·
              3 months ago

              I didn’t say it was a competition or anything remotely like that. Please show me where I did if you believe otherwise.

              Okay

              So you have a very high opinion of your own discretion but assume everyone else is trash or what?

              Where would you put yourself as a percentile?

              Right there. Obviously. In fact, that’s the exact point of a percentile - it’s a ranking system, which is to say, a competition.

              So are you going to answer or not?

              No.

                • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
                  41·
                  3 months ago

                  If you’re not going to answer then I’ll just default to the obvious: you think you’re special and that everyone else is an idiot/sheeple/etc.

                  Right - you’ll just assume that I see it as some sort of competition that I’m winning.

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        73·
        3 months ago

        But I pay attention and weigh and analyze and review and question

        and you do all that based on facts.

        you can analyze, review and question facts and then form an opinion, but first step is to be able to trust the facts you read and that is where the rating of the source may be useful (if you are not already familiar with said source).

        unless “using your own brain” is euphemism for discarding facts which doesn’t fit your opinion, then you indeed don’t need to know anything about trustworthiness of the source 😂

        • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
          37·
          3 months ago

          No - actually I do the bulk of it based on presentation.

          “Facts” fall into two categories - ones that can be independently verified, which are generally reported accurately regardless of bias, and ones that cannot be independently verified, which should be treated as mere possibilities, the likelihood of which can generally be at least better judged by the rest of the article. In neither case are the nominal facts particularly relevant.

          Rather, if for instance the article has an incendiary title, a buried lede and a lot of emotive language, that clearly implies bias, regardless of the nominal facts.

          That still doesn’t mean or even imply that it’s factually incorrect, and to the contrary, the odds are that it’s technically not - most journalists at least possess the basic skill of framing things such that they’re not technically untrue. If nothing else, they can always fall back on the tried and true, “According to informed sources…” phrasing. That phrase can then be followed by literally anything, and in order to be true, all it requires is that somebody who might colorably be called an “informed source” said it.

          The assertion itself doesn’t have to be true, because they’re not reporting that it’s true. They’re just reporting that someone said that it’s true.

          So again, nominal facts aren’t really the issue. Bias is better recognized by technique, and that’s something that any attentive reader can learn to recognize.