I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion – let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it’s the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways…so really no difference).

What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…

  • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    It said MSNBC had a leftist bias. The bot, and by extension its developers, have as much credibility as your Fox News watching uncle who calls everything they don’t like “communism”.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Political stances are relative across the globe. You can’t just draw a line in the middle of American political talking points and then apply that generalization to the rest of the world. It’s more useful to describe specific ideologies (although even that gets pretty muddy fast), but that wouldn’t be very practical for a bit either. Imagine if it somehow concluded that Mother Jones has a “minarchist-capitalist” bias. Still, I question the use of this bot, which is probably based on US terms, running this analysis on a site called “lemmy.world”.

          • zazo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Which is why the bot is not useful - it literally tries to standardize political stances when that’s actually impossible.