Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?
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...
You are viewing a single comment
I actually meant to start a thread one of these days if we can't ban it! Glad you started the conversation!
My main concern is that by attributing a tactfulness and political rating to them, we're attaching weight to that. But who does these ratings? Especially when a pop/mainstream mag like the Rolling Stone is classified as "left" the same that explicitly politically left publications like Jacobin are also "left". That just strikes me as odd.
That information is available on the website, no? Along with their methodology
yes, I know. I meant it more along the lines of whoever comes up with a method for standardizing bias in media puts their own bias in the methodology.
For example, I feel it is a political statement in itself to have a "bias spectrum" from left to unbiased to right. This implies that both left an right are "biases", while only the center is truly neutral and therefore an arbiter of truth and facts. Enlightened centrism, anyone?
Also, I disagree with parts of their methodology. The headline "Habitual liar and convicted felon to seek US presidency again" would probably be classified as loaded language, whereas "Donald Trump wants to become president again" would be considered more neutral.
I would argue that the former example is, in fact, more truthful than the latter because it doesn't omit major reasons why this is newsworthy. But since the mbfc is founded on the
illusionidea that there is such a thing as truly neutral common ground, it conflates perspective and bias.Judging by headlines alone, I'd agree about your assessment of bias.
"World-renowned businessman Donald Trump runs for president" would be biased in favour of Trump (so, Right-biased).
Bias isn't inherently a bad thing if it's telling the truth. Yeah, there's propaganda, but an astute reader can figure it out. Or if you don't want to read media with a certain bias, then you can skip those publications.
Bias also includes what stories to publish. Right-leaning (and beyond) media probably doesn't publish a whole lot about the bad things and mistakes Trump did. Yet with completely neutral-sounding headlines, they could still be a biased publication based on the things they choose to publish (or not) and highlight (or not).