• egrets@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    The post links both The Guardian and MBFC. The bot has picked up both links and posted the following (verbatim):


    Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

    Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.


    MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America


    The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for The Guardian:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
    Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/30/north-korea-troops-russia-kursk-ukraine-lloyd-austin
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      Interestingly enough, Wikipedia’s sourcing list counts Wikipedia as unreliable. It says you need to find information somewhere else so as not to create a self-referential loop. You have to justify it from a solid source that’s outside the system.

      MBFC says that MBFC is incredibly reliable, and incidentally also tends to mark sources down if their biases don’t agree with MBFC’s existing biases, which are significant. It needs no outside sources, because it’s already reliable.

      Good stuff.