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 💖

  • Sami@lemmy.zipEnglish
    13·
    5 months ago

    That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      I understand your edgy take, but equivocating reliable and consistent mediators that accurately discern real news from propaganda with trash like Infowars as “more bias” is nonsense.

      • Sami@lemmy.zipEnglish
        13·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          Not entirely and unequivocally avoiding bias every time isn’t the “opposite of avoiding bias”, it’s an example of perfect being the enemy of good.

          There may technically be inherent bias everywhere, but it’s at best useless and in practice harmful and inaccurate to lump MBFC in with grayzone and to equivocate in general.

          Example from 2020:

          “Biden is just another politician, like Trump”

          Technically true that they are both politicians, but without recognizing the difference between Biden and trump, the states wouldn’t have student debt cancellations, no federal minority legal defenses, fifty plus liberally appointed judges, no reversal of the trans ban, no veteran health coverage for toxic exposure, no green new deal, no international climate accords, no healthcare expansion and so on.

          or:

          “who cares, it’s just another plant”, but arugula is a great salad green while a bite of foxglove can kill you.

          It’s important to recognize the shades of grey and distinguish one from another.

          How fucked is it that such a poorly written book has ruined the extremely useful phrase “shades of grey”?

          • Sami@lemmy.zipEnglish
            17·
            5 months ago

            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

            This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

            And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

            Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

            CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

            So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              “good is not the enemy of perfect”

              Incorrect quote.

              Your problem is making “perfect the enemy of good.”

              You are

              1. mistaking bias check for news reporting

              2. making perfection the enemy of the good

              3. arguing that mostly doesn’t mean mostly(spoiler, mostly does mean mostly)

              4. “this is clearly an ideological decision”: No, your examples provided are both conclusions based on consistent objective standards, the opposite of ideology.