Talk:Media Bias/Fact Check

Methodology
Despite liking MBFC and having had positive interactions with the owner: It's not clear that MBFC has a solid, scientifically/objectively grounded set of methods. 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences."


 * OK, I could accept that he obtained a communications degree. However, "pursued a higher degree..." does not mean "OBTAINED a higher degree..."


 * Please could we have some clarification?


 * "the sciences" is vague, as there are rather a lot of sciences.
 * Stating which science it was would be useful. Stating the name of the institution would also be useful.

Union of concerned scientists
Caveat: in general, this is an organization that I personally respect most of the positions and policy goals of. But they are biased in some weird ways media bias fact check doesn't... erm... check. They're just a little kooky in their origin as an anti-nuclear proliferation group, and that's bled through into their positions nowadays in a way that actually seriously undercuts the scientific soundness of some of their positions vis-a-vis nuclear mix in controlling carbon emissions. They don't mention this history and attached ideology at all because it doesn't fall on the very narrow left-right bias system they've set up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * UCS is no longer pro science, but still has a surprising “high” rating. I vote for mixed, their stuff on gmos and nuclear is hot trash. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 12:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience, MBFC is responsive to criticism. They will usually modify their ratings about an organization if you provide them with citations that support a change. Bongolian (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote to them after I had posted my previous comment. Lets hope it will turn to Mixed, or Mostly Factual. Maybe I should email Dave Van Zandht directly? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk  stalk 10:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had emailed editor@mediabiasfactcheck.com and got a reply from Van Zandt. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You were right, they responded and changed the rating from “High” to “Mostly Factual” with the following written on the UCS page: ”We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to occasionally publishing misleading information regarding GMOs... Updated (08/14/2020)” They updated it right when I was sleeping.
 * It went right from pro-science to being just high to mostly factual. Congratulations UCS, you have played yourself.  The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk  stalk 05:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Bongolian (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

long lists and biased lists
Some of the lists in Media_Bias/Fact_Check are, imo, unnecessarily massive and overwhelming. Would be nice where lists are large to trim the fat and keep the most notable ones.

On the other hand, some lists come across as biased by omission. For example, there is not a single Low factual reporting, left wing source stated; while there are ~21 Low factual reporting, right wing sources stated. Smells like editorial bias to me. Similarly there are very few High factual reporting, right wing sources stated.

Is it just me or https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/ doesn't seem to work? Kauri0.o (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Many articles linked to as list items lack the bit of info inside the article, it's only mentioned here. It could be a little project to add the rating inside articles and then remove the items afterward if they are less significant. It could also, for some types of items, perhaps be added to sections in pages like fake news. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can purge the list. It's outdated (I checked some of the names and they appear different on MB/FC site). Also, if someone wants to know what MB/FC thinks about a certain site they can, you know, just check on their site. No need to spoonfeed anyone here. GeeJayK (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur; the gigantic list here requires constant attention to keep it up to date, and it adds nothing to the article. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To the claims regarding MBFC's ratings... Maybe take a look at the state of rightwing media, especially in the US? It's pretty bad. The reason why it's weighted that way, especially for US media, is because rightwing media here has abandoned any pretense of adhering to journalistic standards. Sure there's left and center outlets with this issue, but nowhere near the massive misinfo machine that is the right-wing media bubble. It's also worth noting that the results being uneven does not make them inaccurate. 20:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)