Five

Just like every good lie has a little bit of truth in it, MBFC wouldn't be able to spin its bullshit as well without usurping the credibility of real fact-checking organizations.

This bot comment adds nothing of value and only wastes page space, which is actually an improvement over the bot's typical function. MBFC is a threat to media literacy on Lemmy.

Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.

This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website.

MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like MBFC's man behind the curtain, Dave M. Van Zandt, undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.

This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website.

MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. I've spoken with @Rooki@Lemmy.World about this issue, and his response has been that he will continue to use his tool despite its flaws until something better materializes because the API is free and easy to use. This is like searching for a lost wallet far from where you lost it because the light from the nearby street lamp is better. He is motivated to disregard the harm he is doing to !politics@Lemmy.World, because he doesn't want to pay for the work of actual fact-checkers, and has little regard for the many voices who have spoken out against it in his community.

By giving MBFC another platform to increase its exposure, you are repeating his mistake. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.

Dave Van Zandt's site, Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors. This is not a credible way of measuring a news publication's credibility.

MBFC is a right-biased credibility gatekeeper. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

The Walt Disney Company is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in Florida. ABC News is a brand of Disney Advertising, whose primary product is propaganda to buy automobiles and prescription pharmaceuticals.

MBFC is a right-leaning credibility gatekeeper that classifies this advertising vehicle as left of center, but it should be remembered that ABC is a neoliberal tool of billionaire Bob Iger, who rescinded his membership in the Democratic Party in 2016 when Trump came to power, and now identifies as an independent voter. He has donated to both Democrat and Republican politicians and PACs, but has been a enemy to unionization and working people. His only allegiance is to the billionaire class.

If you want to understand bias, follow the money. David Van Zandt's site MBFC has a terrible track record of properly vetting sites for bias, and should not be featured here as an authority. Any journalism that is 'left-leaning' coming from ABC News exists in spite of its fundamental right-wing bias.

CGP Grey - jury nullification -- YT

Black Lives Matter's criticisms of Kamala's selection apply to more than the present moment. It's a principled argument against the anti-democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This didn't start with Kamala's ascension or when Joe Biden was handed the nomination without significant opposition, but has been a feature of the Democrats' playbook for a long time.

A party that positions itself as the defender of Democracy undermines and weakens its authority when its own party structures cynically undermine and sideline popular participation.

I disagree with that characterization.

The only error is that someone else didn't post it in a more timely manner. I admire Black Lives Matter, and I enjoy signal boosting their voices. I think they have good ideas, the kind that deserve to be discussed in forums full of thinking people. The message from this statement is timeless, and I think you might benefit from reading it.

You can prevent this from happening in the future by following BLM's media accounts and posting their relevant statements before I do.

I'm a leftist with a long history of supporting healthy discussion on the Threadiverse, @millie; you can easily review it by reading my post and comment history. And I'm disappointed you would assume bad faith when we just had a similar interaction last month, when you were accusing people who criticized this same weakness in the Democratic party of being bad faith actors. This was back when the defense was being used to prop up Joe Biden as the candidate after the debate that revealed his mental decline. I had hoped you might gain more appreciation of the value of dissent from that event.

Do you think it was a mistake to listen to dissent and for Joe Biden to step down?

Which is it?

Both. I didn't see the date, and also I like to pretend that the left is diverse and is capable of criticizing the Democratic party.

Is there a method where BLM could publicly raise concerns about the Democrats' process that you wouldn't characterize as 'the left fighting the left'?