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 💖
Putting some site in charge of determining what news is valid just means that site controls the bias. I like the wide mix that we get now. Partisan commenters are more of a problem than bias in the sources. It’s best when there are informed commenters th point out issues. Sometimes we have them, though not always.
Thank you for putting this into place!
Excellent work, admins!
Ground News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Ground News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: Canada
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ground-news/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fground.news%2F%29%2CMedia Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.comCheck the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2F%29Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.comCheck the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2F%29
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.This is awesome!
Very cool. I would also recommend Wikipedia’s perennial news list as a source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
It will be a little bit difficult to automate fetching that list.
Could just hardcode it and let the community voice their opinions on additions/changes
While I think the current method is a great idea, there’s already people complaining
But then the issue arises what the people complain, the human bias.
Because the user x from instance b accuses the user y from instance a be a bigot because they added SomeRandomNewsPage as biased into there. And it repeats and repeats.
So we chose to use the available option to use MBFC and ground.news for 2 seperate options.
We all know the downside of a human maintained list / service (like MBFC) because you can not remove the human part.
It’s an interesting suggestion, however, I can see a few potential challenges:
-
The methodology is determined by Wikipedia editors’ consensus alone. It’s unclear what the ultimate basis for inclusion/exclusion may be, or whether there is a uniform standard applied.
-
The list is far less comprehensive than MBFC and other rating sites.
-
The scope/purpose of the Wikipedia list is very different from ours. Although we are both ultimately interested in factual, verifiable truth, news/current event aggregation is not the same purpose as encyclopedic archiving.
-
The list is sometimes too granular, and sometimes too broad to be useful for live content moderation. For example, some sources are categorized differently based on the type of content, and others are grouped together.
We would want to discuss and navigate these issues prior to incorporating this list into our communities.
Atleast the consensus of wikipedians is more open and checkable than a closed door analysis like MBFC
I was not aware of that. Can you please share a link to their methodology so I can update my comment?
It looks like you shared the same information page above. Unfortunately it does not show the methodology on this page.
“This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.”
Its explained. If you read the body.
Its done by consensus reached on conversations. It links to the sources board.
-
Just testing how many checks it makes and on what and where. Not sure what triggers it or where.
Edit: forgot to say, thank you!
It triggers on posts, not on comments.
Does this consider the bias of who runs MBFC?
Its a human. Like every page.
So no?
I mean the data is all there for you to look at and experts who have looked at it have agreed it is minimally biased. If you want something that is unbiased, then you’re out of luck, every human has bias. If you believe all experts are biased, you’re also right, but they’re way less biased than someone being paid to be biased. So like everything, you can’t wait forever for perfection, and anyone who tells you they are perfect and totally unbiased is likely the most biased, anyway.
What data? They have a methodology but don’t make any of what they actually complie for rates public.
It’s a bias rating system based on 1 guys bias
The data is there, too. The data is there for every rated organization. It has the history and funding of the individual media plus links to related media organizations that are funded and controlled by the same sources. It has political activity and endorsements made by the organization. And it has a list of failed fact checks and other related issues which are links to external fact checkers. If you read the methodology, this is the data it uses for each rating and all of it is there.
They have that listed but they have big bias when doing the final conclusion and overall ranking.
As others have pointed out some sources mbfc don’t like will have high fact checking with no failures, but then lower credibility ratings.
But the information is all there for you to make your own decision. What other outlets are there that have 0 bias? At least this one has all the info gathered and even if you take the ratings themselves with a grain of salt, it is the best source available at the moment.
As I mentioned above, there’s no such thing as an unbiased person, product, or organization. You take what is least biased, apply common sense, and consume responsibly. No one is going to force feed you all the information without bias on any subject, even if they do their best to be unbiased. Expecting perfection or nothing at all, gives you nothing at all in almost all aspects of life.
deleted by creator
This is awesome. Thank you!
Love this! There are a couple of extensions that do similar around the web but something similar for social circles was missing. Great solution.
The “footer” section is very long, and the spoiler tags don’t seem to do anything on the Boost app. This makes the bot comment take up an entire screen on mobile.
Yeah that is sadly bad implemented on the apps.
We put the “footer” that could go into a spoiler into a spoiler.
Awesome addition!
Browsing world after a few weeks:
After seeing the comment on a few posts, the length is really bothering me. I don’t want to block the bot since it’s useful information. What about a single line of text with a link to “read more”?
Example with explanations:
404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. (change Media Bias Fact Check to a link that goes to a post explaining what they do, the reason for the bot, and a link to their donation page)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news. (change “this article” to be a link instead of displaying link in plain text)
How it might look:
404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news.
the length is really bothering me
I think this is my main challenge. It seems a little intrusive. Maybe I just read a bit from The Guardian and don’t need to see the full monty again.
Another idea. What about not posting the comment when the rating is “high credibility”?
Because then you don’t know if the bot is not working or is behind or if the post is actually credible. Better to have it on everything, though it definitely could put less info on high credibility posts if it can’t be condensed across the board.
That’s a great point that I hadn’t considered. Posting on every post also keeps it neutral instead of seeming to only target certain sources.
I love the info it provides. I agree with many here that it’s too long. I think putting everything behind a spoiler tag that simply shows the rating would be a step in the right direction.
Everything that can be hid behind a spoiler is already in there. The rest is partially because of an agreement with MBFC.
Another idea I’ve been thinking about that would help get the wall of text “out of the way”…:
If the credibility is “High” or higher, have the bot downvote itself to allow other comments to float to the top
If it’s “Mostly Factual” or lower, have the bot upvote itself to help call attention to the possible issue.
…alternatively, if “High” or higher, wait for the first reply before having the bot comment.
I don’t know if any of this is even possible with bots; just spitballing…
The wall of text we will reduce in the next update. The others we will discuss with the team.
Cool - I’d love to know the outcome of the discussion even if it’s just “Not technically possible” or “No; it’s a terrible idea because <X>”
What kind of agreement?
That if we use their api (for free) we need to have a link to MBFC.
Ty for clarifying this.
I think it’s a bad move to automatically throw mbfc links under every post. It will cause people not to engage with the substance of a link and instead provide a (literal) shortcut to that links trustworthiness. Further, mbfc itself has a bias against Palestine as other replies have pointed out among other markers of a problematic source of truth.
There is no need for an alternative to mbfc either, because even if there existed some site which perfectly aligned with the political moment and lemmy world position on that moment it would still be bad idea to have a bot replying to every thread with weather the mods agree or not.
A better way to implement what this new practice seems to be aimed towards is to drop the pretense of impartiality, develop a platform and line and use the mod tools against people who don’t align with it.
We alligned with the mods. Thus we activated it only on certain communities.
There is sadly required or the “discussion” will end like a bomb hit the comments.
With a third party they can at least have a reference and wikipedia + ground news
yeah the problem seems to be that during an election year news and politics discussion boards wither need a huge mod staff or a very clear platform and party line in order to avoid being overwhelmed by people discussing things.
i don’t think any amount of leaving a smattering of links in the comment section is gonna stop that. at best it will derail every post into a discussion of how screwed up mbfc is and how underhanded it is to include it by default.
since world already has a huge mod staff my comments recommended dropping the pretense of impartiality and just outright saying “this is the understanding of the world youre expected to have in order to comment here. if you don’t you can be subject to moderation.”
