Chinese and Philippine ships collide near disputed Sabina Shoal in South China Sea
Chinese and Philippine ships collide near disputed Sabina Shoal in South China Sea
Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal
Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal
Chinese and Philippine vessels collided on Monday during a confrontation near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, the two countries said.
Both countries blamed each other for the incident near the Sabina Shoal.
China and the Philippines have had repeated confrontations in the vital waterway in recent months, including around a warship grounded years ago by Manila on the contested Second Thomas Shoal that hosts a garrison. Beijing has continued to press its claims to almost the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling that its assertion has no legal basis.
You're viewing a single thread.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceMedia Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors.
MBFC is run primarily by one weird right-wing guy. He's not a social scientist, has no experience in journalism, and is basically mirroring other right-wing Americans' biases back at them. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.
You don't understand how that site works.
"mixed" is one metric.
As for news credibility based on bias, spin and fact-checking,
MBFC rates the Guardian overall as "MEDIUM credibility" within the context explained below.
and
MBFC rates Breitbart overall as "LOW credibility" within the context explained below.
Lets look at what MBFC actually says about The Guardian:
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years. Detailed Report Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
and Breitbart:
"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims. Detailed Report Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY"
I've seen several people refuse to countenance credible sources because MBFC rates their Factual Reporting as MIXED, the importance you place on the distinction between MBFC's "Factual Reporting" and "Credibility Rating" is irrelevant.
The issue is that MBFC's ratings are politically motivated, any particular feature of how they express their biases is less important. The fact that their rating system is convoluted and needs a page of explanation is definitely a demerit though.
"I've seen several people refuse to countenance credible sources because MBFC rates their Factual Reporting as MIXED"
yes, that's my point about people not understanding how the site works and drawing false conclusions based on their assumptions.
..."importance you place on the distinction between MBFC's "Factual Reporting" and "Credibility Rating" is irrelevant."
in what world is correcting your ignorance about the contextual analysis of news sources on MBFC irrelevant?
that's literally what you are making uninformed, misleading claims about.
You're imagining that because two cars are labeled "slow", they both must have the same fuel pump, drivetrain and engine without even asking how "slow" is defined or looking at either car.
you've misunderstood and consequently misrepresented the MBFC rankings.
"The issue is that MBFC's ratings are politically motivated..."
proof?
You don't like the founder personally, but there's no proof of what you're saying about MBFC.
"The fact that their rating system is convoluted and needs a page of explanation is definitely a demerit though."
Two brief, concise paragraphs of specific context that explains their media bias rankings, the whole point of the site.
Your entire baseless complaint is that the rankings can't be trusted, while exposing yourself as never having actually read any of the rankings past the first word.
“The issue is that MBFC’s ratings are politically motivated…”
proof?
This is not a controversial statement. The designation of the artificial center of MBFC's political spectrum as 'least biased' should raise the eyebrow of anyone paying attention. It bears repeating that award-winning news organizations like The Guardian getting the same "Factual Reporting" rating as Breitbart is alarming, as is the similar categorization of several other reputable left-leaning news periodicals. Van Zandt is also unabashedly Zionist, repeating the slander that media outlets that criticize Israel are antisemitic. He regards LGBT lobby organizations as left leaning, even when they donate to both Democrat and Republican politicians and don't engage in any economic intersectionality. There are several more obvious clues that Van Zandt is not a neutral observer, not the least of which is his own understated admission: that his judgement of left and right is from an "American Perspective" and "may not align with all countries."
"...should raise the eyebrow..."
damning evidence you have there....
"...regards LGBT lobby as political and left -leaning..."
yea, dude. not a lot of fascist lgbt+ folks.
and then you apparently discovered, to your horror, that the American website created and run by Americans reports from an American perspective?
and the website disclaims to its users that other countries...may not think the same as America.
This is accurate.
for your education, many countries don't think the same way as the United States does.
I guess it's not weird you find this courtesy a shocker.
You personally don't like its founder, and misunderstood the rankings of the website he created, to your displeasure.
MBFC has consistent rankings that it applies to all news sources equally.
you claim to disagree with some MBFC rankings, although you don't bother to read or understand the rankings.
your personal dislike for the founder and personal disagreement with certain rankings is frankly irrelevant and pales in comparison to the fact that you didn't even know there was more than one metric for MBFC.
raised eyebrows and believing that LGBT+ groups shouldn't be classified as left-leaning is no proof.
Do you think that the position that cisgender straight people have the right to exist in public is a biased opinion? Is that position left or right biased?
the dislocated straws you are grasping at for being too lazy to read a webpage before criticizing it are absurd.
"Do you think that the position that cisgender straight people have the right to exist in public is a biased opinion?"
strictly to exist?
no.
cis straight people have the right to exist in public.
any other brain busters?
Why then is the position that gay people have the right to exist in public a biased opinion?
It is not a "biased" opinion, but it is certainly a political issue, to keep our topic consistent and hop ahead a few questions.
would you like to know why?
I'll take another turn:
lgbtq+ prior having the right to exist in public is a political issue because lgbtq+ people have not achieved the unilateral, unchallenged right to exist in public everywhere yet, and overwhelmingly left-leaning political institutions and organizations are committed to extending that right to the lgbtq+ community.
Those left-leaning organizations are making political stances, engaging in political protest and rallies, passing (political, see where this is going?) legislation, to ensure that the conglomerate minorities of lgbtq+ have the undeniable right to exist in public.
these political actions are almost exclusively fought for and achieved by left-leaning organizations, resulting in the lgbtq+ movement being justifiably associated with and classified as left-leaning.
the MBFC rating is based on how factual the articles are, not the frequency of the articles.
Why should the size of the news organization matter when you're assessing bias?
the statistics you're concerned with seem irrelevant to whether or not a news source is credible.
You're incorrect about mbfc equating these two sites .
lets look at what MBFC actually says about the guardian:
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years. Detailed Report Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
and breitbart:
"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims. Detailed Report Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY"
If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes. You're not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?
"If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes."
Big if.
are you making up a series of interdependent assumptions or do you have real data to look at?
"You're not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?"
No, what gives you the impression those two organizations are equally credible news sources?
Because boy, are you in for a surprise.
As pointed out above me, MBFC seems to think so. It gives both a MIXED rating. I don't really get what you're trying to argue here? Am I misunderstanding something?
i think you are, yes.
I'm trying to establish if your multiple assumptions above are based in fact or just a few somethings you've made up, which I'd hardly call an argument.
It sounds like you're saying "If x were true, then y cant be trusted".
Is x true?
I shouldn't have to be the one to provide evidence, because MBFC is the site that is making the claim that Breitbart is on the same level of factuality as the BBC. They say that both had numerous factual errors over the years. I'm not disputing that, the BBC is not great when it comes to many issues. But the BBC consists of several broadcasting channels, radio and news outlets. They publish several dozen pieces a day. Breitbart has nowhere near that volume. I was making the point that volume does play a big role, because for credibility, it is the relative accuracy that counts, not the absolute number of mistakes. If you don't see that point, we can stop right here, the discussion would be pointless.
The thing you are asking for, me providing specific counts for mistakes in reporting, is next to impossible. Still, here is an independent report, focused on statistics as reported by the BBC, that finds that in their sample about 4% of statistics were further challenged, so the number of false statistics reported is likely about that number:
As for Breitbart, and I can't believe I have to spell this out, here is their introduction on Wikipedia:
Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]
If you think that these two are even remotely similar or deserve to be in the same category of factuality, I don't know what else to say to you.
BBC is rated pretty high, as i recall.
Yea, BBC is rated high center-left:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/
Breitbart is rated Mixed far-right, two rankings lower as a "questionable source"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart
again, these are simple assumptions you're making that you could have checked before making such a stand.
everything you said is wrong because you couldn't be bothered to check the facts.
I feel like a total idiot now, some time between reading the original comment and my reply my brain substituted BBC for The Guardian, sorry for wasting both our times on that :'D
My criticism still stands, because it does rate The Guardian as mixed as well.
no sweat. The mbfc meter is more nuanced than it appears.
"mixed" is one metric.
As for news credibility based on bias, spin and fact-checking,
Breitbart has "Low Credibility"
and
The Guardian has "Medium Credibility"