this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
768 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38553 readers
2959 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 190 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

However, Joe Lonsdale, the founder of 8VC, did comment, considering it a response to an attack by left-wing media for "supporting Trump." Lonsdale was referring to an article published by Forbes magazine describing his fund's connections with the sons of Russian oligarchs.

Forbes is "left-wing media" now?

[–] ayyy 120 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

Everything is left-wing media when you are a conservative troll. Just ask the Media Bias bot that will inevitably spew its propaganda at the bottom of this thread.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

This is an honest question because I see the media bias bot being consistently downvoted and don't understand why. Can you fill me in? Why is the media bias bot hated so much? It seems fairly reasonable in its assessments. For example:

  • Daily Vox: Left with High factuality
  • Huffington Post: Left with Mixed factuality
  • MSNBC: Left with Mixed factuality
  • NPR: Left-Center with High factuality
  • Reuters: Least Biased with Very High factuality
  • Forbes: Right-Center with Mostly Factual factuality
  • Fox: Extreme-Right with Mixed factuality
  • OAN: Extreme-Right with Low factuality
  • Newsmax: Extreme-Right with Low factuality
  • Infowars: Extreme-Right with Very Low factuality
    • Conspiracy Level: Tin Foil Hat
    • Pseudo-Sci Level: Strong
[–] [email protected] 57 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
  • this is a worldwide news sub. the bot is ridiculously US-centric. everything it considers left or centre is right wing at best.

  • it’s the pet project of literally one guy, based entirely on his opinions. he’s very clearly got biases, too: very pro-right wing, pro-israeli.

  • it has extremely ridiculous justifications for a lot of why the “left” publications are considered “mixed”, and right-wing publications don’t get the same treatment.

It’s just totally useless garbage. It would be just as worthwhile as having a bot to automatically post my personal opinion of every news website beneath every post on this community.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I take it that you would argue that the media bias bot is worse than nothing?

I'm not arguing in favor of the media bias bot in particular here. I'm just kind of thinking about what might be a better solution. Given the fractured media landscape at the moment, it seems unreasonable to expect everyone to immediately have know the various biases of each news source. Having tools that help with that, even if they are themselves biased, seems like a good starting point for understanding the bias of different news organizations. Is there a better way to develop a similar tool that provides more useful information?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

Just my 2c while taking a shit, I think if the bot just printed the direct name of the news source ("Sky News Australia", "CNN", " The Guardian") and additionally said "This is the automatically detected source of this news. Please consider replying to this comment with a better source if you think one exists"

It makes it clear there's zero bias and encourages conversation with other users here. It also is a reminder in case you might be skimming past and miss the domain it's from, and you personally can judge "Oh, that's what I think is a reputable source", "Oh, it's those wankers, this is garbage" or "I haven't heard of that source before, I'll be skeptical" as some examples

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)