this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
1 points (66.7% liked)

politics

24500 readers
4252 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it's impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.

To this end, we've created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.

As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.

Thanks!

FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team 💖

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Five@slrpnk.net 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Is it your position that criticism of Israel should be censored? Is being pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, or anti-genocide antisemitic?

This is the position of Media Bias/Fact Check. By endorsing their platform, you are also endorsing their radically biased re-definition of antisemitism that is being used to slander holocaust survivors and progressive Jewish voices along with truth speakers of all races and creeds.

Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it's ironic that you're using such a biased propaganda platform to tell your readers what is credible.

Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.

[–] Dempf@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are making a lot of claims, but without any examples or anything to back those claims I am unconvinced.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm in the same boat here, commenter brings pretty bold claims with zero proof to back it up, especially concidering I looked it up, and so far propagandic sources that I know of all show low or medium credibility.

in fact the first 5 Isreal based sources I looked up all show little credibility as well. I am curious where the proof is

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Lemmy Silver you get the Lemmy.world Silver for making the longest "feedback" as many would say. About how bad MBFC is.

But still no alternative or improvement ideas. So i guess we will have to stick to MBFC if there is no one with any ideas.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Why exactly do you have to stick with it? I've not seen that explained.

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why do we need it removed?

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

sigh

I'm not playing your game.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It was so annoying I blocked it.
First it takes way to much space, it should be a 1 liner for stating the bias, and then be able to folds out to show the rest.
Second the data is not very useful, for instance it doesn't say if a source i left or right leaning, although I suppose that trustworthy means left, as we all know facts have a liberal bias. It also doesn't show the owner of the media, which has become one of the most significant factors to judge media from.
Also I don't trust the bot to give accurate info, as the source it uses may itself be politicized.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. On voyager it’s a little clumsy. The header, body, and footer takes up a lot of space. Trying to close/collapse the comment just expands the comment more.

There’s no reason this needs to be large or in your face. It should be small, like a reference. I’d try to reduce word count, lines, and just overall how much space it uses.

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

We reduced it a bit. It will take affect after next deployment ( tomorrow )

[–] vatlark@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This bot sure got a lot of hate, actually MBFC seemed to get most of the hate.

Even if it's not the perfect solution it's a great step towards solving a problem that I think most people can agree on.

Thank you Rooki for you work.

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It got already shut down. So no more MBFC fact checking.

[–] aniki@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Your bot sucks and you should feel bad. Where's the source?

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then give improvement ideas? Deleting the bot is not an option sry.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ground News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Ground News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: Canada
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ground-news/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fground.news%2F%29%2C

Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2F%29

Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2F%29


Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

That somehow feels like nepotism... or just invokes "But who fact checks the fact checker" vibes in me. ;P

Glad to have you on board!

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Excellent idea.

I'd also consider adding Ad Fontes bias checks for an additional perspective done with a different methodology, as well as just more coverage, as MB/FC often doesn't have an entry for more niche sources. Ad Fontes scales itself more to the American political center, as well, so may be perceived as less inherently biased by certain consumers who may be more inclined to outright reject a single fact checking source for political reasons.

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

It would be feasable to get it for an alternative to MBFC, but so far i can find out, it isnt free.

If there is a public API that you found please let me know we will investigate on integrating it.