Talk:Media Bias/Fact Check

	This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Will be bronze when refs are not bare

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. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.171.128.180 / talk}

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#Ratings 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ground News

Another website similar to this is Ground News which shows political leanings of various newspapers. 🇷🇸 Serbiter (Wort wort wort) 16:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Given how hard certain political youtubers seem to be pushing it, I don't trust it. A somebody. (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

MB(FC) is bananas

Seriously?
I'm not 100% sure if through an US-skewed position of the political centre, or through some enlightened take on the well-known biases of reality, but the ratings are ridiculous.

Then I went to read the pages for the BBC, NPR and PBS, and my god what a trainwreck. Asking if Trump was a sexual harasser in title is apparently partisan (somehow way more than the Corbyn Lenin-style cap story). Having a "primarily liberal audience" is supposedly evidence of political leanings (just like hearing whatever Murdoch thinks on the arab–israeli conflict). And last but not least every single failure that they quoted having been done, had been clarified or updated basically on day one. Yet it seems like mistaking "casualties" with "deaths" or "asked" with "suggested" and then immediately making amends puts you on the same "slight to moderate bias" bucket of fox business.

Then it may even be that as far as their fact checking function goes they are pretty much aligned with everybody else, but their media bias is laughable. --Mirh (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The one-dimensional line also ignores the political spectrum entirely. Carthage (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if you consider the ratings off, they're usually not that far off. But its subjectivity is noted. Chillpilled (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you live in a world where the BBC is just a hair short of being closer to the centre-left than the center (I'm sorry for the mouthful, but that's kinda how you register the ranges and the positions in your head) you have already lost the game.
And their bias (here meant in a purely statistical sense) is even the worse the more somebody actually skews on the left. MSNBC is deep blue (rated just two partisan notches better than bloody Jacobin, and three better than fucking FN) despite the fact they themselves acknowledged their scramble for conservative voices and their disdain for leftist activists. The hard evidence being instead quotes used in titles that weren't sanitized newswire language, and failed factchecks (but when you check their links, half of them got near instantaneous apologies and retractions, and another one was even false itself because they somehow trusted the tucker carlson's fact checking portal). --Mirh (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I often find the BBC hard to pin down. The website is filled with fluff. BBC Radio Newshour always scrapes and bows to the oligarchy (i.e. the monarchy), so the default mode there is far-right. There's also a tendency towards unconscious neutrality at times, for example the go-to spokesperson from China is part of a think tank and a non-CCP party that is controlled by the CCP. They never identify him as a CCP propagandist though. There seems to be a slow-motion Tory coup at the BBC though since Tory-appointed Richard Sharp was forced to resign.[1] I'm perceiving more fluff on Newshour as well, and the ex-Rhodesian presenter Julian Marshall's questions can seem offensive at times. Steve Rosenberg, on the other hand is both brave (living and traveling in Russia and Belarus) and an excellent journalist (asking pointed questions directly in an extended in-person interview with Lukashenko, and by phone to war criminal Igor Girkin. Bongolian (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) There is also a disconnect between BBC Radio and the website: it's almost impossible to find the radio stuff on the web, seemingly disappearing into the ether for the most part. Mayeni Jones is another excellent reporter, covering Africa on the ground. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very super duper much opposed to the idea of monarchs, but honestly I don't think that in the country of the probably oldest and biggest constitutional monarchy you need to be a stovepipe-hatted aristocrat to approve of them (especially after ¾ of a century with a lass whose only mission was damage control). Then, sure, they strive a lot for neutrality and they have many top notch journos. But they aren't always perfect. And these tumblings are virtually all in one single direction (especially after more than a decade of tory reign). Arguing otherwise is being the kind of unreliable person Colbert was mocking 18 years ago already. --Mirh (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: it's even worse with more underground (but no less proudly and avowedly) conservative outlets. This is right-center (probably just because they are never-trumpers) with a "clean fact-check record", despite the fact that they are P2025 apologists and they pretty much cucked themselves over abortion (and it's funny how "woke marxism" is noted as just moderate emotional baiting) --Mirh (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)