Not really, if you read my other comment they’re actual journalists that have a solid history of good reporting.

They started this spin off of the intercept project relatively recently so that’s probably why.

Not sure on the down votes but my guess is that you mentioned the media bias sites and people would rather you come to your own conclusions based on the sources history kinda like you ended up doing by looking up the creators instead of relying on those sites.

I personally stopped interacting with the .worlds world news community after they forced the clearly biased mb/fc bot on everyone despite a lot of complaints.

On the about section of drop site news page:

Founded by Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill, and veterans of The Intercept.

Feel free to look them up they do good work.

I wont disagree that there should be a ranking for using loaded language but combining it with the factuality ranking twists what the ranking means since to the average person they’re going to read that as how accurate the facts are.

It should be its own separate rating from factuality. Again if we’re going to have to have a bot like this put clear disclaimers and ideally find a better one than this.

Wrote this over on the announcement post for this bot:

Just looking over the methodology it’s clear that it has it’s own biases:

American Bias

The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.

Centrist Bias

The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.

Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.

The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.

Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.

Questionable Fact Checking

Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.

The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasn’t found to fail any fact checks.

The ADL was found to be so unreliable on it’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.

“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”

Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.

As the other poster says we don’t need to have something like this at all.

If you’re adamant about it then make a post where people can suggest which one we use and vote on it. We can also adjust the bots comment to clearly call out the chosen ones biases and methodology. As it is now it’s actively harmful as I mention in my other comment.

I think having this post isn’t a great idea because you are just assuming the websites bias are legit. At the very least there needs to be a lot of warnings in the bots post about the websites biases and the methodology they use so the reader can come to their own conclusion.

Just looking over the methodlogy it’s clear that it has it’s own biases:

American Bias

The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.

Centrist Bias

The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.

Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.

The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.

Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.

Questionable Fact Checking

Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.

The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasn’t found to fail any fact checks.

The ADL was found to be so unreliable on it’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.

“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”

Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.

Very odd article, nothing in it suggests they’re “embracing” trump, at most the article mentions a poll on who they think is likely to win.

Many within the South African business elite actively lobbied for an ANC-DA partnership, fearing an alternative that was termed by the DA as a “doomsday coalition” between the ANC and one of its far leftist split-offs in the EFF and/or MK party. The fear included the possibility of the government seizing land and assets currently owned by wealthy, predominantly white business owners.

The ANC ultimately decided against the MK party’s ultimatum, instead forming a coalition with the DA, and a number of its smaller right-wing party allies — including the white nationalist Freedom Front Plus or “FF Plus.” In this way Ramaphosa was able to keep his position as South African President in exchange for a number of executive cabinet positions, which had been previously reserved exclusively for high ranking ANC party members.

More notable, the leader of the white nationalist FF Plus, Pieter Groenewald, was appointed Minister of Correctional Services. It’s the first and only cabinet position that the party has ever obtained and is a remarkable advancement for them considering they actually lost votes and were only able to secure around 2% of the vote.

Rather than side with leftists, they went with white nationalists. Sure that’ll work out great /s

Love how people are downvoting someone asking to not fund and supply a genocide. Somehow can’t clear the lowest bar of human decency.

Oh 100% they should be too, I just went with the easiest recent one.

Maybe not actively but there’s a lot of past presidents that should be charged if the world was fair. Most obvious example is Bush.

That really only applies if your vote can change the election which isn’t going to happen outside of the maybe 4 swing states.

With your same logic if your voting for Biden in one of the states he’s guaranteed to win or lose then your morally supporting a genocide for no actual change.

The most brain dead reply I’ve read today. Not sure why this math is hard to understand for people but if someone votes 3rd party trump does not get an additional vote, so no it’s not the same as supporting trump.

If Biden wants to earn their vote then maybe he should not fund and supply a genocide then?

Some of these are gold lol

The meme is that westerners care more that that the people that are seeing their kids murdered condemn the only (while very imperfect) group that is helping them instead of focusing on the fact that kids are being murdered.

And the US doesn’t have the world’s largest prison population both by number and % of population and it’s HEAVILY skewed towards minorities?

Open to changing my stance but can you back that up? I see ~0.5 million from excess deaths from just the Iraq war which is put on GWB. There’s more I’d say he’s responsible for too thats just the top thing.

Wouldn’t count deaths from starvation due to famine entirely on a ruler considering the shape the country was left in post Korea war thanks to the US but even if you tried to largely attribute that it seems pretty close.

Kim never invaded and occupied another country for years so GWB definitely deserves a spot on here.

Enlighten us because nothing in your comment bothered to go into any of the reasons so why even make it if you then don’t want to follow up.