forgot about that myself.
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
WHO Declares Global Health Emergency for New China Covid Outbreak 2025
- Thread starter RiffRaff
- Start date
forgot about that myself.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
I literally quote that page in my reply and never suggest otherwise lol.Media Bias Fact Check lists Fox News as Mixed.
Fox News (foxnews.com) - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or nomediabiasfactcheck.com
In fact, I explicitly state that it lands on the same as NBC.
So I'm not sure the point of just reiterating what I said in a reply. What does this refute?
I think you either misread or stopped reading halfway when I started going over all of the huge things they omit in giving them this mixed rating (which probably should be lower), and that when you take a fact checker that aggregates and balances data across several of these services in order to average out any bias they might have themselves it paints a very different picture.
Perhaps my mistake was listing Fox as one of the rags NBC is "slightly" better than, when it shouldn't have been in that list, as it's much lower.
I implore you to read before you rebut.
But, not to miss the forest for the trees. It's not about Fox being bad per se, it's about MBFC's clearly slanted articles about each of them, where Fox is artifically boosted to MIXED and has a ton of key information and lies omitted (and outright falsehoods about their reporting too), and NBC, compared to other checkers, is artificially deflated to MIXED, with a bunch of much, much smaller things than what is left out of the FOX side all listed out as major factors.
To have them both at the same ranking is a blatant false equivalence that if looking at the facts of the matter is not even partisan; one is explicitly stated by its founder as being a propaganda network and has its own hosts and anchors admitting behind the scenes that they're lying about everything, even without factoring in what specifically they are lying about or what side they are lying for, and the other is NBC, a publication that uses emotionally charged headlines and has a left reporting bias but ultimately scores higher than the vast majority of outlets for factual information.
So personally, I'm going to trust the one that integrates MBFCs data alongside the data of other checkers in order to mitigate the impact of this, and that is Ground News, who accurately labels NBC as very biased but also very factual at its core, and Fox as no higher than mixed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
Too many major media outlets have blurred the lines between "news" and "editorial opinion." This is how Fox can get away with a "Mixed" rating. In the event of a breaking news story (major train derailment, for example), their reporting on the actual incident itself will probably be pretty factual. For about 24 hours. Then it will start to blur with hosts tossing out opinions about how the derailment is the fault of (insert political figure here) because (insert less-than-reliable-facts here).Media Bias Fact Check lists Fox News as Mixed.
Fox News (foxnews.com) - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
You stated that Media Bias Fact Check said "they assert that the Fox site has never failed a fact check"
I corrected you because you were wrong.
You go on to make accusations of "artificially boosted" and "artificially deflated" based on your own opinion because (likely) you didn't like the results. Certainly it wasn't because you had any facts to back up your claim. You won't have facts because you (nor anyone else) is privy to Media Bias Fact Check's criteria.
So let's stop calling opinion facts and let's stop making claims that are demonstrably false.
You are certainly free to place your faith in whatever organization you like.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
I see the issue here.
if you go to /fox:
Fox Business - Bias and Credibility
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words
mediabiasfactcheck.com
If you go to /fox-news-bias:
Fox News (foxnews.com) - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com
As each page was taking 20+ sec to load I simply punched Fox into the URL.
Yet, they rank both of them the same, even while stating Fox Business has never failed a fact check, and listing out all these things about Fox News.
And they rank both Fox News and NBC the same too, while again, showcasing much, much more about Fox being a rag.
Curious.
So yes, I will absolutely posit that there is some bias involved in ranking NBC, Fox Business, and Fox News the exact same, as there is really no way to square up these all having the same rating based on the information on the pages.
While I had the wrong page, it really does not change the substance of putting these 3 outlets in the same ranking with wildly different levels of issues stated on the pages.
An outlet that admits to lying constantly, not even being news, has to defend that no reasonable person could ever take it seriously, and an outlet with a handful of missteps over the years, cannot possibly be in the same category under any criteria I can see (bolded so as to not be misconstrued/twisted into anything besides conjecture) unless there is some fudging going on.
As a side note here I think contextually speaking it's extremely obvious that it's observation/conjecture. There is no rational way to read it and take any other conclusion but to be the conclusions drawn based on the facts rather than direct fact itself, as I quite obviously don't work there lmao, and also don't state it is anything but. Especially when I literally explain my reasoning for the take, I don't see how it's possible to claim it's anything but a take; how or why would I elaborate on my personal reasoning to arrive at a conclusion if it's an objective fact and not a conclusion reached by that process?
It literally makes zero sense to interpret this any other way.
I am often quite explicit with eg. "Factually" as well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
Also: Any organization who does not make its criteria public, which i have not checked about MBFC but I am going off your word that nobody knows the criteria, why on earth would anyone trust it? It's like running code you can't audit yourself. There's usually a reason they don't want you to know. It's insane to trust any claim you can't verify directly, otherwise you'd have to decide it's true based on who says it instead of what it is... which is batshit. The equivalent of arguing against a person instead of the point - except on the scale of deriving aspects of your worldview instead of just unproductive conversation, no?
I don't believe in using faith for such things, which is why I appreciate that GN is transparent about exactly who they source their data from and that they balance it to try to account for these issues.
(moved to other reply to organize)
I don't believe in using faith for such things, which is why I appreciate that GN is transparent about exactly who they source their data from and that they balance it to try to account for these issues.
(moved to other reply to organize)
Ah. We were looking at two different pages. haha