APP - mediabiasfactcheck.com bias

Scott

Scott

Verified User
I've come to find that people place way too much faith in certain fact checker sites, mediabiasfactcheck.com perhaps being the most common site used. I've decided that instead of continually linking various articles I've found that are critical of the site, it'd make more sense to simply make a single thread on the subject and then just refer people to it instead. Constructive comments welcome.

Some articles on mediabiasfactcheck that I think are educational on the site:

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? | justfactsdaily.com

Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated x2) | politifactbias.com
 
There will always be antagonists of honest reporting, no one likes to be considered biased, but the reality of reporting is more complicated. Reading bits of the apologetic linked above reminded me of children caught in the wrong. But but but... Truth is, media bias should be covered and key assumptions made clear. Today a few of our media outlets are simply opinion - often republican - and not reporting. Democrats can do no good. I have no problem with that but 'news' should be removed from their label. I covered that topic in a thread linked below I need to update. Site noted above is covered here: Shooting the messenger is as old as history.

"In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does, however, convey a right-leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy. We also rate Just Facts Daily Mixed for factual reporting based on a few failed fact checks."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/


Are Newsmax, OANN, and Fox Media threats to American Democracy?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...N-and-Fox-Media-threats-to-American-Democracy


'Trump's America' This is a deep dive into Trump and authoritarianism.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/497mckyoef7angt/Chapter 10 sgl.pdf
 
midcan5 said:
There will always be antagonists of honest reporting, no one likes to be considered biased, but the reality of reporting is more complicated. Reading bits of the apologetic linked above reminded me of children caught in the wrong. But but but... Truth is, media bias should be covered and key assumptions made clear. Today a few of our media outlets are simply opinion - often republican - and not reporting. Democrats can do no good. I have no problem with that but 'news' should be removed from their label. I covered that topic in a thread linked below I need to update. Site noted above is covered here: Shooting the messenger is as old as history.

"In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does, however, convey a right-leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy. We also rate Just Facts Daily Mixed for factual reporting based on a few failed fact checks."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/


Are Newsmax, OANN, and Fox Media threats to American Democracy?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...N-and-Fox-Media-threats-to-American-Democracy


'Trump's America' This is a deep dive into Trump and authoritarianism.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/497mckyoef7angt/Chapter 10 sgl.pdf
Click to expand...


I'm left wing on a fair amount of issues and I've never been a fan of Trump. However, when it comes to issues such as Covid, the Ukraine war and the west's views of Russia in general as well as the left's general approval of censorship, it seems that most on the left essentially follow the official narrative, so there I must turn "right" since I strongly disagree with these narratives.

I'm currently focusing quite a bit of energy on the democrat's efforts on censorship, which can be seen here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-of-Truth%92-wasn-t-removed-just-rebranded-RT

I do note that some on the left are not happy with these trends to some extent. I remember Bernie Sanders saying that he wasn't happy with Trump being permanently removed from Twitter, back before Must took over Twitter.
 
I find labeling a way to avoid understanding. Calling something left or right has little meaning or substance. What it does is provide any easy escape from both complexity and understanding. When sites provide false information we do need to call them out. I'll check your link next.
 
midcan5 said:
I find labeling a way to avoid understanding. Calling something left or right has little meaning or substance. What it does is provide any easy escape from both complexity and understanding.
Click to expand...

I agree in part. However, I've also found that it can sometimes be useful to refer to left and right. I think of it something like an abbreviation or a summary. Yes, abbreviations can sometimes stand for more than one thing and yes, summaries can leave a lot out, but when you don't want to spend a lot of time on a subject, labelling a stance "right" or "left" can be helpful. I'm more careful when it calls to labelling -people- left or right. If they label themselves that way, I am certainly more comfortable with labelling them the same, but otherwise, I tend to follow their lead. I may say that a given stance they take is generally right or left, just as I do with my own stances, but that's generally as far as I go.

midcan5 said:
When sites provide false information we do need to call them out. I'll check your link next.
Click to expand...

Agreed. THe problem is when powerful sites censor information that may actually be true. That's where the link I mentioned last time comes in.
 
Agreed, many of the media bias checkers are themselves biased, that's why it's good to approximate the bias of something between them rather than relying on one site exclusively - allsides.com is another bias checker that is biased differently - and media bias fact check is more mainstream. There are other bias checkers like Ad Fontes Media IIRC.
 
midcan5 said:
I find labeling a way to avoid understanding. Calling something left or right has little meaning or substance. What it does is provide any easy escape from both complexity and understanding. When sites provide false information we do need to call them out. I'll check your link next.
Click to expand...

This is exactly correct. It's very tribal to refer to left and right, it's also a habit I sometimes fall into then must get out of doing.
 
I put little to no faith in any "fact-checker" site or "fact-checker" columnist. I see the whole bunch as nothing more than op ed (opinion piece) writers foisting their opinion on something. They have no greater or lessor credibility than any other sort of op ed columnist does. I do question however, their use of the "fact-checker" title as a means of gaslighting readers, tossing it out there as if it alone makes their opinion more valid or valuable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top