I get why partisan fact-checking can be problematic but the rest isn’t making sense to me. I feel like you’re saying we shouldn’t bother with fact-checking because the only thing you need to go on is your gut feeling. Many things are demonstrably false and no amount of bias can change that. Besides, fact-checkers have a reputation to uphold.
This is the calling card slogan of someone who’s bought into reality rejection…
The educated world is built on a web of trust whereupon subject matter experts must necessarily yield to others when something is outside of their realm of expertise. I am a planetary scientist and geophysicist and spent nearly a decade studying. I am constantly learning things in my own field, and by no means do I have a full grasp on every detail. But I can call out BS when someone talks about orbital mechanics or earthquakes or whatever. I do not, however, know anything about the digestive tract of my cat and yield to the veterinarian who has spent their whole life becoming an expert on these sorts of things. I don’t argue with the vet that I’ve done my own research (watched a few youtube videos) and thus am qualified to disagree with them. Because objectively I know less than them on that subject and no cursory review will solve my ignorance.
When rating the bias of news organizations, what qualifications do you have so that you can do your own research? Do you have fundamental knowledge of the journalistic process? Is the media source covering a topic you are a subject matter expert in? Or are you just lashing out because it doesn’t vibe with your worldview?
That’s the only way to get the full picture, because any particular … “fact checking” source isn’t going to give you that.
I’m not following. Are you suggesting that fact-checkers are responsible for giving you the news too? That’s not their job.
Individuals don’t have the time, energy, or know-how to do proper fact-checking on an entire news site, let alone hundreds of them, to determine if it’s trustworthy overall. We outsource that to people who can. The process is not simple and most likely requires formal training and at the very least a degree in journalism or equivalent to do a proper job. To give you an idea, fact-checking a single claim can take up to 30 minutes or more and there are many claims in one article and you need to check dozens of articles. It’s a monumental task for any one person for questionable results.
And yes, I agree that one should read more than one source. But make sure that you can trust them because they were vetted by various independent groups. This multiple sources argument also goes for the fact-checkers, where they should mostly agree.
As do the people they’re “fact-checking” but it doesn’t stop those people from publishing lies
No, news sources’ interests are vastly different than the fact-checkers’. MBFC is used in research as a benchmark and isn’t profit-driven. And even if it were like NewsGuard, their value proposition is accuracy.
With all due respect, I think you’re not getting what the role of fact-checking is in journalism and how sites like MBFC fit that role.
Then how do they determine if the “fact-checker” is trustworthy?
There’s a large degree of coincidence in their independent evaluations. As I said, some things cannot change no matter the bias.
At the risk of citing Wikipedia, I’ll use it to illustrate my point:
“Scientific studies[19] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[15] with NewsGuard[20] and with BuzzFeed journalists.[21] When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability.[15][16][22] A 2022 study that evaluated sharing of URLs on Twitter and Facebook in March and April 2020 and 2019, to compare the prevalence of misinformation, reports that scores from Media Bias/Fact Check correlate strongly with those from NewsGuard (r = 0.81).[20]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Chec#Reception
As you can see, an 80% of overlap in its independent evaluations are not due to chance. And 20% discrepancy says that they’re not copying each other, either.
If I start a “fact-checking” site today, would you just instantly trust me to report only facts and be unbiased?
Why would I do that if I’m telling you otherwise? I’m not sure how you got that. For your fact-checker, you’d need to build a good reputation first by providing highly accurate data that can be compared and we’ll go from there.
You seem to be suffering from the idea that “fact checkers” are somehow inherently more trustworthy than the publications
I’m not “suffering” from any ideas, but I’m not sure you’re getting what I mean. As I said, fact-checkers are subject to a large degree of scrutiny, probably more than the publications they check.
I disagree, and that’s part of the reason I’m so strongly opposed to Lemmy.World’s use of Dave Van Zandt’s site in their bot. Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.
MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.
In this particular case, it adds to the problem that naturally if you ask one side of a dispute whether they think it’s fair or not, they might be sliiiiiiightly biased…
deleted by creator
I get why partisan fact-checking can be problematic but the rest isn’t making sense to me. I feel like you’re saying we shouldn’t bother with fact-checking because the only thing you need to go on is your gut feeling. Many things are demonstrably false and no amount of bias can change that. Besides, fact-checkers have a reputation to uphold.
deleted by creator
This is the calling card slogan of someone who’s bought into reality rejection…
The educated world is built on a web of trust whereupon subject matter experts must necessarily yield to others when something is outside of their realm of expertise. I am a planetary scientist and geophysicist and spent nearly a decade studying. I am constantly learning things in my own field, and by no means do I have a full grasp on every detail. But I can call out BS when someone talks about orbital mechanics or earthquakes or whatever. I do not, however, know anything about the digestive tract of my cat and yield to the veterinarian who has spent their whole life becoming an expert on these sorts of things. I don’t argue with the vet that I’ve done my own research (watched a few youtube videos) and thus am qualified to disagree with them. Because objectively I know less than them on that subject and no cursory review will solve my ignorance.
When rating the bias of news organizations, what qualifications do you have so that you can do your own research? Do you have fundamental knowledge of the journalistic process? Is the media source covering a topic you are a subject matter expert in? Or are you just lashing out because it doesn’t vibe with your worldview?
deleted by creator
I’m not following. Are you suggesting that fact-checkers are responsible for giving you the news too? That’s not their job.
Individuals don’t have the time, energy, or know-how to do proper fact-checking on an entire news site, let alone hundreds of them, to determine if it’s trustworthy overall. We outsource that to people who can. The process is not simple and most likely requires formal training and at the very least a degree in journalism or equivalent to do a proper job. To give you an idea, fact-checking a single claim can take up to 30 minutes or more and there are many claims in one article and you need to check dozens of articles. It’s a monumental task for any one person for questionable results.
And yes, I agree that one should read more than one source. But make sure that you can trust them because they were vetted by various independent groups. This multiple sources argument also goes for the fact-checkers, where they should mostly agree.
No, news sources’ interests are vastly different than the fact-checkers’. MBFC is used in research as a benchmark and isn’t profit-driven. And even if it were like NewsGuard, their value proposition is accuracy.
deleted by creator
With all due respect, I think you’re not getting what the role of fact-checking is in journalism and how sites like MBFC fit that role.
There’s a large degree of coincidence in their independent evaluations. As I said, some things cannot change no matter the bias.
At the risk of citing Wikipedia, I’ll use it to illustrate my point:
“Scientific studies[19] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[15] with NewsGuard[20] and with BuzzFeed journalists.[21] When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability.[15][16][22] A 2022 study that evaluated sharing of URLs on Twitter and Facebook in March and April 2020 and 2019, to compare the prevalence of misinformation, reports that scores from Media Bias/Fact Check correlate strongly with those from NewsGuard (r = 0.81).[20]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Chec#Reception
As you can see, an 80% of overlap in its independent evaluations are not due to chance. And 20% discrepancy says that they’re not copying each other, either.
Why would I do that if I’m telling you otherwise? I’m not sure how you got that. For your fact-checker, you’d need to build a good reputation first by providing highly accurate data that can be compared and we’ll go from there.
I’m not “suffering” from any ideas, but I’m not sure you’re getting what I mean. As I said, fact-checkers are subject to a large degree of scrutiny, probably more than the publications they check.
I disagree, and that’s part of the reason I’m so strongly opposed to Lemmy.World’s use of Dave Van Zandt’s site in their bot. Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.
This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website. You can read more about those principles here.
MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.
deleted by creator
In this particular case, it adds to the problem that naturally if you ask one side of a dispute whether they think it’s fair or not, they might be sliiiiiiightly biased…