News @lemmy.world Rooki @lemmy.world 4mo ago

Media Bias Fact Check - Automation

Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it's impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.

To this end, we've created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.

As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.

Thanks!

FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team 💖

88 comments

Does this consider the bias of who runs MBFC?
- Its a human. Like every page.
  
  So no?
This is a bad bot using bad reasoning and it's only going to hurt the state of discourse. You're not countering dishonesty, you're encouraging it.
- Can you provide some examples? Is Media Bias problematic or just this bot and how so?
  
  I'm just gonna drop this here as an example:
  
  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jerusalem-report/
  
  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jerusalem-post/
  
  The Jerusalem Report (Owned by Jerusalem Post) and the Jerusalem Post
  
  This biased as shit publication is declared by MBFC as VEEEERY slightly center-right. They make almost no mention of the fact that they cherry pick aspects of the Israel war to highlight, provide only the most favorable context imaginable, yadda yadda. By no stretch of the imagination would these publications be considered unbiased as sources, yet according to MBFC they're near perfect.
After seeing the comment on a few posts, the length is really bothering me. I don't want to block the bot since it's useful information. What about a single line of text with a link to "read more"?

Example with explanations:

404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. (change Media Bias Fact Check to a link that goes to a post explaining what they do, the reason for the bot, and a link to their donation page)

Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news. (change "this article" to be a link instead of displaying link in plain text)

How it might look:

404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news.
- the length is really bothering me
  
  I think this is my main challenge. It seems a little intrusive. Maybe I just read a bit from The Guardian and don't need to see the full monty again.
- Another idea. What about not posting the comment when the rating is "high credibility"?
  
  Because then you don't know if the bot is not working or is behind or if the post is actually credible. Better to have it on everything, though it definitely could put less info on high credibility posts if it can't be condensed across the board.
- I love the info it provides. I agree with many here that it’s too long. I think putting everything behind a spoiler tag that simply shows the rating would be a step in the right direction.
I think this is so stupid.

I swear it's a "centrist" libertarian idealism that you are gonna find all the biases of the publication so that you feel superior for not falling for any of them.

To a degree things should make you feel an emotional response and to not and think yourself better for not, makes you falsely superior.

I get it for making sure that propaganda isn't posted but that's more of what general community moderation is for is it not?

I dunno, I definitely don't think it should be so prominent. I barely think it's needed. Maybe people could call to the bot to check for them? But putting privately decided political leaning on every post just seems like needless segregation that allows for people to immediately ignore that and the conversation that can be had from it.
I hate this and have already blocked the bot.

Comments are obscenely long, and I see no reason to trust your source.
- Thats yours, we endoresed every to block it when you dont like it.
Putting some site in charge of determining what news is valid just means that site controls the bias. I like the wide mix that we get now. Partisan commenters are more of a problem than bias in the sources. It's best when there are informed commenters who point out issues. Sometimes we have them, though not always.
I think the bot is crap based on this: The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium]

The guardian is one of the best newspapers on the planet and published content exposing such as the Panama Papers.
- Thats your opinion. Thats the whole reason we added the bot. To give people a second opinion, if they need to trust it or even read it. Is on your own responsibility.
  
  People like quick answers and barely even read the articles. All you are doing is giving ammunition to those types to easily dismiss anything and drag the conversation because of a private credibility rating.
  
  It's a bad idea.
  
  okay, , how does website/bot reach its conclusions on Fact Check Credibility?
Very cool. I would also recommend Wikipedia's perennial news list as a source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
- It will be a little bit difficult to automate fetching that list.
  
  It's an interesting suggestion, however, I can see a few potential challenges:
  
  The methodology is determined by Wikipedia editors' consensus alone. It's unclear what the ultimate basis for inclusion/exclusion may be, or whether there is a uniform standard applied.
  
  The list is far less comprehensive than MBFC and other rating sites.
  
  The scope/purpose of the Wikipedia list is very different from ours. Although we are both ultimately interested in factual, verifiable truth, news/current event aggregation is not the same purpose as encyclopedic archiving.
  
  The list is sometimes too granular, and sometimes too broad to be useful for live content moderation. For example, some sources are categorized differently based on the type of content, and others are grouped together.
  
  We would want to discuss and navigate these issues prior to incorporating this list into our communities.
  
  Could just hardcode it and let the community voice their opinions on additions/changes
  
  While I think the current method is a great idea, there's already people complaining
Thank you for putting this into place!
The "footer" section is very long, and the spoiler tags don't seem to do anything on the Boost app. This makes the bot comment take up an entire screen on mobile.
- Yeah that is sadly bad implemented on the apps.
  
  We put the "footer" that could go into a spoiler into a spoiler.
A timely article about why this type of "rating" is a really bad idea:

The most chilling words today: I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you by Jonathan Turley.
- The guy is a Trump / Musk supporter, he's half the problem as it is.
  
  While I have criticized Trump in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.
  
  Yeah, those 34 duuuuubious felony convictions!
  
  Turley has written a lot about the NY trial and his analysis looked ok to me. IANAL of course. But, those convictions didn't seem to change Trump's polling noticeably. We will see what happens with Harris.
Bot: Hmm this article reflects reality, thus it is biased to the left.

Using charged language like that constitutes disinformation and is reprehensible. Imagine if viewers started disregarding a source on account of your bot declaring it biased.

Shameful.
- That's not how the bot works.
  
  You're right, it just copies a right-wing human's opinion, and blurts it out in a format that takes way too much space, and pretends to be without bias.
  
  You know, ban material.
Browsing world after a few weeks:
Love this! There are a couple of extensions that do similar around the web but something similar for social circles was missing. Great solution.
Mods, I appreciate this bot!

Deciphering media bias is tough, and finding 1 site that will 'perfectly' identify biases is an impossible task, but at the minimum having this bot show up on posts 'gets people thinking' about the credibility of their news sources.

MBFC doesn't have to be the ultimate arbitrator either. If it is missing something about a specific article people can call it out in the comments. At the end of the day, the worst thing it does is add more data about a news source and I'm not gonna complain about that.
- Thanks! MBFC isnt perfect, its made by humans and in their free time.
  
  It's not perfect, why is this being pushed as an arbiter of truth?
Just testing how many checks it makes and on what and where. Not sure what triggers it or where.

https://news.sky.com/story/junior-doctors-offered-20-pay-rise-by-government-to-end-strike-action-sky-news-understands-13186769

News.sky.com

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/fighting-rages-displaced-gazans-struggle-with-disease-lack-shelter-2024-07-29/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/lebanon-braces-israeli-retaliation-strike-kills-2-south-lebanon-2024-07-29/

Edit: forgot to say, thank you!
- It triggers on posts, not on comments.
The amount of people that can't handle a super basic rating of a news outlet is chilling.

I know and accept that I rely on biased media, because all of it is biased. It's media, not scientific papers (which are also often biased btw.). Having a bias does not automatically make it bad.

I care a lot about factual reporting tho. And I want to see the same news from different POVs, with different biases, because they will highlight different things. If you don't, mute the bot, get your daily dose of whatever propaganda you like so much and stfu.

And no, this is not 'centrism'. I'm pretty sure most people who use that word don't even know what it means. Historically, centrism describes a moderate left-wing view. Centrists are the center of left.
- The authority that is given to this one bot to determine "Facts" is more the issue I think.
- The only bias in my scientific papers is in the data! But we compensate for it and if you approve our next grant we totally promise we'll be able to reduce that bias. So give us more funding pretty please!
Excellent work, admins!
I love the info it provides. I agree with many here that it’s too long. I think putting everything behind a spoiler tag that simply shows the rating would be a step in the right direction.
- Everything that can be hid behind a spoiler is already in there. The rest is partially because of an agreement with MBFC.
  
  What kind of agreement?
  
  Another idea I’ve been thinking about that would help get the wall of text “out of the way”…:
  
  If the credibility is “High” or higher, have the bot downvote itself to allow other comments to float to the top
  
  If it’s “Mostly Factual” or lower, have the bot upvote itself to help call attention to the possible issue.
  
  …alternatively, if “High” or higher, wait for the first reply before having the bot comment.
  
  I don’t know if any of this is even possible with bots; just spitballing…
Reporting the bot will not get you what you want/expect. If you don't like it, you're welcome to block it.
- We are well aware that the bot can be blocked. The issue that I think a lot of us have here is not the bots existence, but rather the reluctance for the mods to take user feedback into account. Just from looking over the bot comments likes and dislikes it is evident the majority of the community dislikes the bot and administrators are ignoring concerns over it and being defensive. This does not bode well for trust at all for future decisions. The administration's actions are showing that the community has no say in how things operate here, despite being a community platform, evidently in name only.
  
  Please do not take your users for granted. Most of of us left a platform specifically where the administration ignored what the user base as a majority wanted. This is how you destroy your community and any goodwill you've built up with them.
  
  I'm truly intending this in good faith, there is nothing to be gained from alienating your community.
- Report abuse will be punished.
This is awesome!
Ground News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)

Ground News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
Country: Canada
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ground-news/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fground.news%2F%29%2C

Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)

Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2F%29

Media Bias/Fact Check Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)

Media Bias/Fact Check is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
- https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2F%29

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
This is awesome. Thank you!
Awesome addition!