Fun fact, the diminutive for “Vladimir” isn’t Vlad, its Vova.

Which I think is just so adorable, it’s perfect for that little dictator.

Removed by mod

Woof.

There’s absolutely no difference?

Are you… are you serious?

I said I didn’t have time to give this persons argument the attention it required to engage with it in good faith.

It’s weird that you’re so opposed to open and honest communication in the context of an argument. Doesn’t speak very well about you.

They often state that western sources use less biased language and more often provide evidence, but always acknowledge when they are a part of a government.

Which, by the way, was the gist of my critique of the source that I highlighted in my OP. This news agency is literally funded by governments that are opposed to the US in Syria, and are quoting another Syrian government owned source.

I don’t know what an “Anglo nationalist” even is.

We can talk about how it assesses factuality, but it’s not really relevant to my particular use of MBFC, since I quoted how the media of the OP is funded, which is incredibly relevant.

The existence of op-eds and their content is a useful indicator of where a particular media entity sits. Their editorial standards also reflect the kind of language a source routinely allowed. It’s a good indication of what the outlet is willing to publish.

What is your critique with how it states it samples? It’s a sample of a media source for a qualitative and subjective assessment. I, too would like to know more about how it samples, but I can also see the framework that it follows to assess factuality and confirm or dispute it through a quick look at the headlines and by skimming through some stories, if it seems warranted (though I admit, when it comes to sensationalized headlines and incendiary language, or an obvious government agenda I won’t necessarily do all my due diligence to assess a media source… like I did with the OP).

As for your specific concerns about factuality, you chose some random articles and engaged with them specifically but didn’t link them here, so I’m not going to do your job and go and find the thing you’re talking about.

To your last comment: it’s not always trivial to do the legwork. There is a lot of media out there, and it’s just getting more and more overwhelming. MBFC is just a tool. You have to be aware of the dangers when using a tool. Your critiques are all somewhat valid, but you’re advocating for throwing out a useful tool for media literacy because it’s not perfect.

It’s a lazy argument that requires the other party to do a bunch of work to make your own point.

You just linked a video that you don’t introduce, in a setting you don’t mention, and don’t discuss who the speaker is.

Removed by mod

I’m a critical thinker and student of public policy and global society and political discourse?

I have a deep and lasting dislike of authoritarianism, no matter the political orientation?

I value media literacy and critical thought?

I dislike the exploitative trend of capitalism, it believe that ny ultimate purpose is to use my own privilege to try and soften the blow for humanity in whatever small way I can, thinking globally in scope while emphasizing engagement with my own immediate community?

But really, I’m just weirded out by the attack on critical thought around here, when all I did was question a questionable source. I’m also wondering why the fuck my political orientation is relevant here, and why you think you’re able to condescend to me in such a childish way.

What are you talking about? LLMs have no bearing in this conversation, you brought them up.

Are you saying that you don’t allow people to use tools to evaluate media; and share their reasons for scepticism?

The bit that I quoted from MBFC is factual information (the story’s sponsors and an assessment of reliability), which I used to begin a conversation about the source.

Which upon further discussion was, indeed, ultimately sourced to a Syrian governmental agency, which is then been repeated by various governmental sources. There has not yet been any evidence to support the allegations made by the original source, which supports MBFC assertion that the original news agency does not often provide reliable (by journalistic standards) justification for its news stories. It seems like a really weird idea for you to so vehemently oppose a resource that enables critical thinking.

The news article is an extension of at least one state agency, and there are critiques of its truthfulness. That’s the takeaway from my original comment.

I feel like I’m repeating myself, but I literally cannot fathom a good faith justification for not allowing a widely accepted tool for media literacy to be allowed here. (For clarity, I’m talking about MBFC, not any LLM stuff, which only serves to obfuscates things.)

This is all true, and comes

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

If I’m being honest, I don’t have time to read through all of you other, linked comment, that doesn’t at all contextualize it into this current conversation.

I will try to do that, though, and appreciate the seemingly good faith post that I didn’t see in your other comments.

Edit: you have ranted and offered links to Wikipedia. It’s clear that you don’t know how to use this particular tool, as it’s designed primarily for US media, and adheres to North American and European journalistic standards, with an inherent and sizable bias towards the United States political and media climate.

You are making the claim about its funding. Please provide your argument, rather than making oblique references to things.

I haven’t had time to watch and contextualize the long video you sent me to respond to it.

But if you have concerns about the bias of a well known and widely respected source of fact checking (not even first hand news), then please expound and cite it.

Otherwise, I have to assume you are making a bad faith argument, and cannot source your assertions, so I don’t have any need to engage with you.

That’s the same argument that the (presumably) other poster is making.

The founder is relatively anonymous. Why does that impact the demonstrable work his creation does?

I don’t have time to watch an hour and a half video right now.

Will you please quote the words of the source that you are offering, in addition to the context of their words?

This is such a weird assertion to make, I just don’t understand the mission of the people who are arguing with me about media literacy and downvoting my calls for critical thinking about the media they consume.

Like a tool in a media literacy toolbox?

You’re showing your own bias. It’s not the resource. It’s one that does an awful lot of legwork in checking bad sources of news, very often accurately.

So. Don’t call me a “lib,” pal.

Who you calling a “lib?”

I accept your point about why it matters who runs the site. I would just argue that in this case, it’s not as relevant because the goal seems to legitimately be information transparency, which is consistently delivered across its work. Its findings are at least generally reproducible. But no it’s not scientific. I believe I’ve stated that already, however it’s a good indication of reliability of a source.

Yes, human bias creeps in, hence my point of using it alongside general media literacy and critical thinking when evaluating media.

It aggregates and analyzes a ton of sources, and gives generally accurate information about how they are funded, where they are based, and how well the cite original sources. These are all things that can be corroborated by a somewhat systematic reading of the sources themselves.