I spent some time on this site because GWB likes to tout it out every once in a while as if it is the end-all-be-all of final say in which websites should be trusted and which should not be. All you have to do is spend a little time on the site and you'll see sites like Vox and Salon as "mostly factual" even though MBFC does list them as left wing. Pick some right wing sites and you'll get words like "nationalistic" and "conspiratorial" or "extreme right wing", and a ton of other warnings. But the adjective used for polar opposite (extreme left wing) sites are just "left wing". In fact, many sites on the left have no adjectives used at all. For example, Al Jazeera - the news site owned by Qatar:
That's it. The language will say things like "These sources are generally trustworthy" where a similar right wing site with "mixed" will get language like "rarely are stories fact-checked before publishing" etc.
A good site to go to is Just Facts Daily, though I'm sure even they have bias. They issued a complaint and story on MBFC. It is a long read, but very valuable as it shows how MBFC incorrectly labeled them and, only when challenged, actually reversed some of the review and labeled them truthy. The article:
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?
Here is another article where Politifactbias.com investigates MBFC for their shoddy reporting.
Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated)
Another really good read. In it, the following excerpt:
Right. In fact, there are a whole host of websites that point out flaws with MBFC, though you will have to use a search engine like Duckduckgo that doesn't bury these reviews and challenges like Google does - or use Google but go through pages of results until you start to find the negative ones (which is something Google does to change the narrative, of course).
The fact of the matter is that much of this so-called fact checking is subjective in nature. If someone says something that is easy to prove, it is easy to fact check. Someone saying something that requires a journalist to actually investigate - well, that's another thing entirely. And MBFC seems to source Wikipedia as proof that it has fact checked items, when Wikipedia is nothing more than crowd sourced info in many cases.
At the end of the day, a lot of this stuff can be avoided if people actually challenge the ideas and data presented and spend their energy on devising and developing solid arguments founded in the Scientific Method rather than just leaping to discredit and slander a source simply because they don't like the conclusion reached.
Hope you're listening, GWB. But I doubt you are.
That's it. The language will say things like "These sources are generally trustworthy" where a similar right wing site with "mixed" will get language like "rarely are stories fact-checked before publishing" etc.
A good site to go to is Just Facts Daily, though I'm sure even they have bias. They issued a complaint and story on MBFC. It is a long read, but very valuable as it shows how MBFC incorrectly labeled them and, only when challenged, actually reversed some of the review and labeled them truthy. The article:
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?
Here is another article where Politifactbias.com investigates MBFC for their shoddy reporting.
Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated)
Another really good read. In it, the following excerpt:
Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a "Least-biased" source of information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a "Methodology" page describing its methods:
The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures--something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.
It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:
The categories are as follows (bold emphasis added):
The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures--something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.
It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:
The categories are as follows (bold emphasis added):
- Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
- Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well sourced evidence.
- Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides or do they only publish one side.
- Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? In other words how extreme are their views. (This can be rather subjective)
Likely Van Zandt regards only the fourth category as subjective. All four are subjective unless Van Zandt has kept secret additional criteria he uses to judge bias. Think about it. Take the "biased wording" category, for example. Rate the headline bias for "PolitiFact Bias" on a scale of 0-10. Do it. What objective criteria guided the decision?
There is nothing to go on except for one's own subjective notion of where any observed bias falls on the 0-10 scale.
Right. In fact, there are a whole host of websites that point out flaws with MBFC, though you will have to use a search engine like Duckduckgo that doesn't bury these reviews and challenges like Google does - or use Google but go through pages of results until you start to find the negative ones (which is something Google does to change the narrative, of course).
The fact of the matter is that much of this so-called fact checking is subjective in nature. If someone says something that is easy to prove, it is easy to fact check. Someone saying something that requires a journalist to actually investigate - well, that's another thing entirely. And MBFC seems to source Wikipedia as proof that it has fact checked items, when Wikipedia is nothing more than crowd sourced info in many cases.
At the end of the day, a lot of this stuff can be avoided if people actually challenge the ideas and data presented and spend their energy on devising and developing solid arguments founded in the Scientific Method rather than just leaping to discredit and slander a source simply because they don't like the conclusion reached.
Hope you're listening, GWB. But I doubt you are.
