this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
142 points (96.7% liked)

World News

38500 readers
2836 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
 

This year marks 30 years since the Rwandan genocide in 1994, when a Hutu-majority government and a privately owned radio station with close ties to the government colluded to murder 800,000 people.

The year 1994 may seem recent, but for a continent as young as Africa (where the median age is 19), it’s more like a distant past.

Suppose this had happened today, in the age of the algorithm. How much more chaos and murder would ensue if doctored images and deepfakes were proliferating on social media rather than radio, and radicalizing even more of the public? None of this is beyond reach, and countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Niger are at risk—owing to their confluence of ethno-religious tensions, political instability, and the presence of foreign adversaries.

AfricaCheck.org

all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I hadn't been aware of the collaboration with the radio station until I watched the show Evil (episode 12).

It's just a fun show, not political, but I'd recommend watching that episode. Not that it goes into great detail, but the acting and writing make it feel so much more understandable, how a radio host calling minorities cockroaches can really matter. Stochastic terrorism and all that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm just getting into that show. I'd say it's a lot more political (in a good way) than you give it credit for. And doesn't shy away from its criticisms of Catholicism.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Thinking more on it, I suppose you're right. A lot of the "politics" are specifically Church politics, but not all of them.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Foreign Policy – Bias and Credibility

Bias Rating: Least Biased

Factual Reporting: High

Country: USA

Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free

Media Type: Magazine

Traffic/popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility

About MediaBiasFactCheck.com

Methodology

Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable

Article By Abdullahi Alim

Archive Link: 21 Jun 2024 21:41:42 UTC

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as "generally unreliable", recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset's ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect.”

I was trying to find the criticism you cited, but it must be buried somewhere under a mountain of praise. Could you explain what the nature of their complaint is? I’m out of the loop.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Haha, I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. You’ll notice both MBFC and Ad Fontes were given that status primarily due to being Self-Published. However I wouldn’t consider MBFC or Ad Fontes to be the be-all and end-all perfectly authoritative source either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I clicked your link. Not only is the quote you provided not actually present in your source, but the sentiment isn’t even there. The article is mostly about how reliable and consistent the website is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Huh, that's so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:

It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.

So if those are considered fact-based, there's no need to delve further.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, no wonder it was removed - entirely without citation and low relevance. To be honest, the existing line “…been criticised for its methodology” is on shaky ground, I checked the citation and I would not characterise it as a critique:

“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”

That is the entirety of what the source says, it doesn’t go on to mention it more in later paragraphs, just that one sentence.

CNN’s own source for that claim is a single tweet with no reactions to it whatsoever, which doesn’t feel very iron-clad to me.

Considering the massive incentive for powerful companies and individuals to cast doubt on the veracity of media bias/fact check, it seems irresponsible to interpret the source in that way and to spread that claim as though it’s entirely watertight.

Can I ask, why did you even post your original reply? Did you do your own fact check in January, see that paragraph, and decide to share it to discourage people from trusting the fact-checker?