TEHRAN (Tasnim) - Dozens of loud explosions were heard in the Mrayjeh area in the southern suburb of Beirut, just past midnight on Friday, due to an Israeli air raid.
Hey, just as a heads up we discourage the posting of " media bias checkers" here because it is intellectually sloppy to outsource whether you should trust a source to some guy who has their own bias. And MBFC is just some guy, who has no credentials and doesn’t do any sort of scientific analysis to determine his ratings.
Please reply acknowledging you understand this within 48 hours.
I guess I see it like this: if I think something is inaccurate should I debunk it or should I post “this random right winger online says it isn’t credible” (and MBFC is a right winger, but not a fascist)
Bro. They aren’t even saying you’re wrong here. They’re saying it’s their sub, stop the bias check because your literally just supplying people with your bias. If it were ai you’d have more of a point but it’s quite literally your opinion based on your references and they don’t want that.
Stop crying and certainly don’t lash out with idiotic and frankly weird commentary on it being somehow antisemitic for people to think critically on their own.
Specifically they never said you couldn’t post your references and your opinion just don’t call it a fact check.
MBFC presents itself as “fact check” but it is really just subjective determinations slotted into an inappropriate analysis as judged by a political illiterate. The overall curve of “centrist” sources being high on facts simply reveals their own bias, where they fail to recognize the non-factual components of those sources, the train of think tanks, and whether topics are covered at all, or in certain contexts.
Ironically, the only time I ever see anyone trying to unironically make use of it and cite it is so that they can avoid critically engaging with media. They just say, “this website says it’s bad” and turn their brains off, successfully short-circuiting cognitive dissonance.
Media criticism is a journey! It’s good that you wanted to question sources and spent some time doing so. The annoying thing about media criticism is that there are a lot of tropes and think tanks and journalistic malpractices. And often no alternative information, so to understand a given news piece you might have to use a biased source with a poor track record (e.g. New York Times), look into the author, review all of the sources, try to see what might be accurate vs. what is PR BS, and still end up (correctly) thinking, “it’s only 50:50 that the main claim us even true”. After a while it gets easier because you know the think tanks, or already know enough about the subject matter to spot BS, or immediately notice that a given article is full of unsourced editorialization masquerading as journalism.
If you like podcasts, Citations Needed is an entertaining one that by two journalists goes over a trope or topic per episode. There are also transcripts available. I also recommend that people check out FAIR.org, a site focused on media criticism and more specifically calling out ongoing bad faith practices for current topics
He is literally just some guy with no expertise in critical media analysis. He just made a website where he gives his opinions on how much you should trust a source.
It’s not a good source. Biased towards whatever the guy who created it things. Thinks left v right in terms of usa so just about everything is left of center even when center. Oh an propaganda is okay as long as it’s western. Cause VOA and radio free Asia are given glowing marks
Removed by mod
Gee, I wonder why the hobby of a conservative Zionist masquerading as a fact and bias checker would be opposed to a source from Iran… 🙄
Careful. World admins may see this and get mad 😂
Hey, just as a heads up we discourage the posting of " media bias checkers" here because it is intellectually sloppy to outsource whether you should trust a source to some guy who has their own bias. And MBFC is just some guy, who has no credentials and doesn’t do any sort of scientific analysis to determine his ratings.
Please reply acknowledging you understand this within 48 hours.
Dunno what they said but wouldn’t using MBFC and my own knowledge be better than just my own knowledge and my own biases?
I guess I see it like this: if I think something is inaccurate should I debunk it or should I post “this random right winger online says it isn’t credible” (and MBFC is a right winger, but not a fascist)
Removed by mod
Oh wow, you’re conflating Israel and Jewishness, a common example of antisemitism. Lovely.
Bro. They aren’t even saying you’re wrong here. They’re saying it’s their sub, stop the bias check because your literally just supplying people with your bias. If it were ai you’d have more of a point but it’s quite literally your opinion based on your references and they don’t want that.
Stop crying and certainly don’t lash out with idiotic and frankly weird commentary on it being somehow antisemitic for people to think critically on their own.
Specifically they never said you couldn’t post your references and your opinion just don’t call it a fact check.
Is there something I don’t know about MBFC? Edit: typo
MBFC presents itself as “fact check” but it is really just subjective determinations slotted into an inappropriate analysis as judged by a political illiterate. The overall curve of “centrist” sources being high on facts simply reveals their own bias, where they fail to recognize the non-factual components of those sources, the train of think tanks, and whether topics are covered at all, or in certain contexts.
Ironically, the only time I ever see anyone trying to unironically make use of it and cite it is so that they can avoid critically engaging with media. They just say, “this website says it’s bad” and turn their brains off, successfully short-circuiting cognitive dissonance.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, I thought it was actually useful, but admit I had never looked into it and its sources.
Media criticism is a journey! It’s good that you wanted to question sources and spent some time doing so. The annoying thing about media criticism is that there are a lot of tropes and think tanks and journalistic malpractices. And often no alternative information, so to understand a given news piece you might have to use a biased source with a poor track record (e.g. New York Times), look into the author, review all of the sources, try to see what might be accurate vs. what is PR BS, and still end up (correctly) thinking, “it’s only 50:50 that the main claim us even true”. After a while it gets easier because you know the think tanks, or already know enough about the subject matter to spot BS, or immediately notice that a given article is full of unsourced editorialization masquerading as journalism.
If you like podcasts, Citations Needed is an entertaining one that by two journalists goes over a trope or topic per episode. There are also transcripts available. I also recommend that people check out FAIR.org, a site focused on media criticism and more specifically calling out ongoing bad faith practices for current topics
He is literally just some guy with no expertise in critical media analysis. He just made a website where he gives his opinions on how much you should trust a source.
It’s not a good source. Biased towards whatever the guy who created it things. Thinks left v right in terms of usa so just about everything is left of center even when center. Oh an propaganda is okay as long as it’s western. Cause VOA and radio free Asia are given glowing marks
Thank you for the clarification, I had thought it was a useful site, but admit I never looked into its sources.
It’s just some zionist’s blog site. You or I could make a site called official world bias meter and it’d be no more credible.
I can’t recall if it is the MBFC person or the bot maker but one of them staunchy doesn’t think there’s a distinction between ‘liberal’ and ‘left’.
So the inherent bias in their bias analysis is off the charts. Xzibit would be proud.
there’s a bot that will do this for you over on lemmy.world. i think you’d like it better over there.
Noooooo, don’t call out literal state propaganda, I like the headline D,: