Not really, if you read my other comment they’re actual journalists that have a solid history of good reporting.

They started this spin off of the intercept project relatively recently so that’s probably why.

Not sure on the down votes but my guess is that you mentioned the media bias sites and people would rather you come to your own conclusions based on the sources history kinda like you ended up doing by looking up the creators instead of relying on those sites.

I personally stopped interacting with the .worlds world news community after they forced the clearly biased mb/fc bot on everyone despite a lot of complaints.

On the about section of drop site news page:

Founded by Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill, and veterans of The Intercept.

Feel free to look them up they do good work.

Going to add this report from Amnesty International back in 2009 showing Israel is the one using human shields

Like I kinda said in my last paragraphs you’ve got fair points that it may be good enough for what it’s being used for here (despite it’s clear biases) since it’s not being used to disallow posts. Although other commenters have said it has a pro-Zionist bias as well which is honestly more concerning than things I’ve pointed out. Haven’t had time to check beyond the ADL one.

Overall my main issue is the community wasn’t really asked if one was desired, which one should be used, how it should be used, etc. Because of that and the lack of good response by the poster I’ve already decided to follow other world news communities instead of this one.

Thank you! I know they only recently spun off from the intercept with this, so I believe a website is on the way but will try not to post from here until then unless it’s some unique reporting I’m not seeing on any actual websites.

I think the importance of American bias is overstated. What matters is that they’re transparent about it. That bias also impacts the least important thing they track.

It affects the overall credibility rating of the source, how is that the least important thing? They also seem to let it affect the factual reporting rating despite not clearly stating that in the methodology.

Based on MBFC’s [methodology](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/), it’s actually impossible for editorial bias alone to impact the credibility rating without having additional problems

This is only true specifically when you’re thinking about it as a great source can’t have its credibility rating lowered. A not great factual source can get a high credibility rating if it’s deemed centrist enough which again is arbitrary based on the (effectively) 1 guys personal opinion.

High Credibility Score Requirement: 6

Example 1

Factual Reporting Mixed: 1

No left/right bias: 3

Traffic High: 2

Example 2

Factual Reporting Mostly Factual: 2

No left/right bias: 3

Traffic Medium: 1

See how weighing credibility on a (skewed) left/right bias metric waters this down? Both of these examples would get high credibility.

On top of that, none of this impacts this community at all. It could be a problem if the standard here was ‘highest’ ratings exclusively, but it isn’t.

That’s a fair point and I did state in my original post that despite my own feelings I’d be open to something like this if the community had been more involved in the process of choosing one/deciding one is necessary and also if we had the bots post clearly call out it’s biases, maybe an explanation of its methodology and the inherent risks in it.

The way it’s been pushed from the mod first without polling the community and seeing the reaction to criticism some of which was constructive is my main issue here really.

I’m not going to die on the intercept hill here I’m fine with the fact that even though they fired the person it’s a stain on their record so sure let’s say that rating is fine.

It was one of the first 3 I checked so I’m sure I’ll find more that are problematic when I have a chance to look because it’s their methodology that’s biased. Also the other 2 I pointed out are clearly not correct.

Got rebuttals for any of my criticisms about the methodology?

What you’re basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldn’t be given at all.

What I’m saying is that on a world news community we shouldn’t be using a US based left/right. What that should be should be voted on by the community if the mods insist we need to have some sort of fact checker like this which I disagree is needed.

I don’t know why FAIR is being rated as “High” instead of “Very High” by MB/FC but I don’t see this as some kind of overwhelming issue. The Intercept ranking has an explanation in the report and you should read it but it comes down to the fact that they’re known to only cover certain stories, they’re known to repress journalists, and they’ve been previously caught with writers that were making stuff up. Despite all of that they’re still being rated “mostly factual”, so again I’m not seeing this as an overwhelming issue.

The reason FAIR doesn’t is because MB/FC downgrades sources if it (arbitrarily based on the US right skewed Overton window) decides a source is left/right bias even if there has never been a failed fact check. For The intercept it was literally 1 reporter and they retracted all bogus statements, I could see that being 2nd rating then.

Again the 3 sources I mentioned we’re literally the first 3 I checked, it’s not a small issue with MB/FC it’s the fact that the methodolgy downgrades the factual rating if the source isn’t as centrist as the (effectively) 1 guy that runs the website wants the source to be. What number of incorrect ratings would make you decide this is a terrible checker? Cause with some time I’m sure I could come up with any reasonable target given.

So the ADL is ranked the same as FAIR. Seems consistent. You’re also overstating the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia only considers them unreliable on the Palestinian Conflict. The ADL is still perfectly fine (with them) for other things.

Didn’t overstate I specifically mentioned twice what it was basing that off of. Also I don’t see how that would be consistent when 1 source has never failed a fact check and the other has been deemed unreliable on both the Palestinian conflict and on anti-sentism. How should both of those be the same rating?

There probably isn’t a fact checker out there that’s going to be perfect and also free but that doesn’t mean we shoehorn a crappy one in here without putting massive disclaimers clearly calling out the biases it has.

Again left/right based on the website creators definition of those words which is going to be biased.

If they omit information then you can fact check that. Automatically downgrading factuality because they’re not considered centrist by the website arbitrary definition that’s based on the USs skewed view of left and right isn’t objective in anyway.

The fact that their methodology downgrades factual rankings if they (arbitrarily) deem a source left/right bias even if they’ve never failed a fact check shows how terrible it is.

They give the ADL which Wikipedia has deemed unreliable their 2nd highest ranking shows even their fact checking isn’t good.

I wont disagree that there should be a ranking for using loaded language but combining it with the factuality ranking twists what the ranking means since to the average person they’re going to read that as how accurate the facts are.

It should be its own separate rating from factuality. Again if we’re going to have to have a bot like this put clear disclaimers and ideally find a better one than this.

Wrote this over on the announcement post for this bot:

Just looking over the methodology 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.

As the other poster says we don’t need to have something like this at all.

If you’re adamant about it then make a post where people can suggest which one we use and vote on it. We can also adjust the bots comment to clearly call out the chosen ones biases and methodology. As it is now it’s actively harmful as I mention in my other comment.

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.

What does “less forgiving” even mean here, better rhetoric? Words and shaming haven’t and won’t stop Israel’s genocide.

Unless she puts an actual stop to the funding and weapons or helps enforce the ICJ/UN rulings on Israel there isn’t going to be a material change to the genocide.

Again, all you’re doing is saying ‘she supported an ally way back in the past before it started doing warcrimes’

Israel has been doing it for decades, the illegal occupation has been happening since 1967. They’ve been “mowing the lawn” every couple years and arbitrarily detaining Palestinians the entire time. The only thing that’s recent is the speed at which they’re killing the Palestinians.

My issue is that they’re considered an ally of the US at all, that policy stance was terrible the entire time, just because some people only started paying attention recently doesn’t mean it’s a recent development.

Edit:

Amnesty international had a report way back in ‘09 about the use of white phosphorus and human shields by the Israelis.

Unless you have recent examples that hard counter any of the below any reasonable person should see isn’t going to suddenly change. When the uncommitted movement had over 100k votes in a Michigan (a swing state) that’s just shooting yourself in the foot if you’re trying to beat trump.

She has clear a history of pushing against any international organization trying to hold Israel accountable on any level. Unless she comes out and clearly distances herself from Biden’s actions why should we think she’ll be any different?

• Harris set a tone for her posture on Israel as a senator when she co-sponsored legislation in 2017 condemning former President Barack Obama’s decision to abstain from vetoing a UN Security Council Resolution critical of Israel. The resolution, which was adopted in December 2016, stated that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

• During the 2020 presidential race, the New York Times asked Harris if she thought Israel meets international standards of human rights. “Overall, yes,” she replied.

• In Harris’s first call with Netanyahu after becoming vice president, on March 3, 2021, she told the Israeli leader that the U.S. was opposed to the International Criminal Court investigating alleged Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians. Harris and Netanyahu “noted their respective governments’ opposition to the International Criminal Court’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel,” according to a White House readout of the call.

Very odd article, nothing in it suggests they’re “embracing” trump, at most the article mentions a poll on who they think is likely to win.