Other places to discuss US News and Politics that don’t endorse a political science charlatan’s attempt to shift the overton window to the right:
Other places to discuss US News and Politics that don’t endorse a political science charlatan’s attempt to shift the overton window to the right:
Common Dreams Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
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.
Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He’s not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.
He admits that his system for judging ‘bias’ is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC’s purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods for rating credibility are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.
He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.
Admitting that measuring bias is inherently subjective does not make it pseudoscience, and the methodologies used to measure each publications bias are listed on each page. This is not tantamount to “pseudoscience.”
It’s never presented as more than an opinion, and you’re free to disagree with it.
What do you think methodology means in the context of science?
MBFC never claims to be “science”. In fact, your screenshot shows where it specifically claims that it is not.