Skip to main content

Old Salt and his god MBFC.

The public’s paranoia toward “fake news” over the past year has opened the door for a different kind of scam artistry: websites that try to get ahead by tricking the public into believing that real news outlets are fake. One of the most notorious scams has come in the form of a site called Media Bias Fact Check, which offers no information of the sort, and instead offers amateurish “ratings” of various news outlets. These ratings are inaccurate, useless, and changed at random. Even worse, in at least some instances, its “ratings” are simply based on information it’s cribbed from Wikipedia.

The “Media Bias Fact Check” scam is built around the premise of convincing gullible internet users that various respected news outlets are compromised because they’re “biased” in way or another. This allows its victims to believe they know something that others don’t know, and causes them to comment with links to these phony ratings in reply to articles posted from the news outlets in question. But the Media Bias Fact Check ratings often read like a fifth grader’s unfinished homework assignment or worse. For instance here’s the entirety of the “rating” for popular magazine Cosmopolitan:

“Cosmopolitan is an international fashion magazine for women and has a circulation of over 3 million. (Wikipedia) Cosmo’s primary focus is on fashion, sex and relationship tips, but they also cover politics. Cosmo has a strong left wing bias in reporting and story selection. Though biased, Cosmo usually publishes sourced information.

That’s it. That’s the entire “rating” provided by Media Bias Fact Check. The person who wrote this rating has clearly never so much as looked at Cosmopolitan, and has included no examples to support the “Left Bias” rating that it’s randomly assigned to the magazine. And stunningly, coming up with the above entirely useless four-sentence rating required cribbing at least one of those sentences from Wikipedia of all places. Even students get flunked for using Wikipedia as a source. Other “ratings” on this scam site are even more amateurish.

But with a scam site like this, the details don’t matter. By putting the words “Fact Check” in its name, and then assigning negative ratings to news outlets, Media Bias Fact Check is creating the phony appearance that these negative ratings are based on a lack of factual accuracy. The site is counting on gullible people not fully grasping the difference between accuracy and bias, and it’s certainly counting on its victims never bothering to read the pitiful explanations provided for the ratings it assigns, or seeing the part where it admits the site in question is factually accurate. In that sense, falling for scam sites like “Media Bias Fact Check” is no different than falling for fake news. We’re working with our contacts at the major social media networks to get these fraudulent “rating” sites banned before they do any more harm.

https://www.palmerreport.com/p...from-wikipedia/2342/

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Jack Hammer posted:

Old Salt and his god MBFC.

The public’s paranoia toward “fake news” over the past year has opened the door for a different kind of scam artistry: websites that try to get ahead by tricking the public into believing that real news outlets are fake. One of the most notorious scams has come in the form of a site called Media Bias Fact Check, which offers no information of the sort, and instead offers amateurish “ratings” of various news outlets. These ratings are inaccurate, useless, and changed at random. Even worse, in at least some instances, its “ratings” are simply based on information it’s cribbed from Wikipedia.

The “Media Bias Fact Check” scam is built around the premise of convincing gullible internet users that various respected news outlets are compromised because they’re “biased” in way or another. This allows its victims to believe they know something that others don’t know, and causes them to comment with links to these phony ratings in reply to articles posted from the news outlets in question. But the Media Bias Fact Check ratings often read like a fifth grader’s unfinished homework assignment or worse. For instance here’s the entirety of the “rating” for popular magazine Cosmopolitan:

“Cosmopolitan is an international fashion magazine for women and has a circulation of over 3 million. (Wikipedia) Cosmo’s primary focus is on fashion, sex and relationship tips, but they also cover politics. Cosmo has a strong left wing bias in reporting and story selection. Though biased, Cosmo usually publishes sourced information.

That’s it. That’s the entire “rating” provided by Media Bias Fact Check. The person who wrote this rating has clearly never so much as looked at Cosmopolitan, and has included no examples to support the “Left Bias” rating that it’s randomly assigned to the magazine. And stunningly, coming up with the above entirely useless four-sentence rating required cribbing at least one of those sentences from Wikipedia of all places. Even students get flunked for using Wikipedia as a source. Other “ratings” on this scam site are even more amateurish.

But with a scam site like this, the details don’t matter. By putting the words “Fact Check” in its name, and then assigning negative ratings to news outlets, Media Bias Fact Check is creating the phony appearance that these negative ratings are based on a lack of factual accuracy. The site is counting on gullible people not fully grasping the difference between accuracy and bias, and it’s certainly counting on its victims never bothering to read the pitiful explanations provided for the ratings it assigns, or seeing the part where it admits the site in question is factually accurate. In that sense, falling for scam sites like “Media Bias Fact Check” is no different than falling for fake news. We’re working with our contacts at the major social media networks to get these fraudulent “rating” sites banned before they do any more harm.

https://www.palmerreport.com/p...from-wikipedia/2342/

Yeah...we already know that site is a lefty site....that one and his other site he always uses.

Last edited by Jutu

Old news and just another attempt by Jack to justifying using "the most discredited sources on the internet."

Media Bias/Fact Check responds:

"For some mysterious reason Bill Palmer of the Palmer Report and the Daily News Bin has decided to republish, a false report about Media Bias Fact Check that he published on 12/16/16 in the Daily News Bin. Mr. Palmer can republish this story to all of his blogs and social media, but that won’t change the truth.

 

The Palmer Report is a good source for digging up information on political figures. The only real issue we have with the Palmer Report and Daily News Bin is the use of harsh loaded words that convey negative emotive feelings toward the right and positive toward the left. We understand that no journalist can be free from bias, but words matter in how they shape a story. Words matter to us and we make sure to expose sources that use loaded language to sway readers. There is nothing wrong with having biased opinions as long as you back them up with facts. For the most part, Palmer does this. It is just a matter of navigating through his loaded language to find the real story that is usually there, though never quite as sensational as Palmer wants you to believe.

Regarding his claims against Media Bias Fact Check, I suggest you read our first response to the original publishing of his false article. You can also click the following links to learn everything about our website that debunks Mr. Palmer’s claims.

About Media Bias Fact Check

Frequently Asked Questions

Methodology for Determining Bias

I also highly encourage you to read the update on the Daily News Bin review that highlights the threats Mr. Palmer made against me personally. We feel this is a fine example of one’s credibility or lack-there-of.

Lastly, when judging our work please consider that we equally get attacked by far right media sources who object to their ratings. We also always share these negative reports on the front page of our website. Bottom line is we have faith in our readers to decide what is true, based on evidence. We have nothing to hide. We encourage you to post this on social media when you encounter Bill Palmer’s fake report.

Dave Van Zandt
Editor/Owner"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...dia-bias-fact-check/

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×