The Critical Critic wrote:
”Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, as well as on the accuracy of their factual reporting. The site is run by founder and editor Dave Van Zandt.
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
i ”Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates... (
show quote)
The Columbia Journal piece reads as an opinion piece written by someone with a low opinion of fact checkers in general and MB/FC in particular. Yes, I went to the actual site of the article that portion of the Wikipedia page referenced. The specific portion of the opinion piece mentioning MB/FC.
Tamar Wilner wrote:
The armchair academics
Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The
site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.
The armchair academics br Amateur attempts at such... (
show quote)
That is the entirety of what she said of MB/FC. She did not go into any detail to describe MB/FC's methodology or what flaws she sees in their methodology. I suppose if one were to assume that was the entirety of his methodology, they may consider it deeply flawed, which is why one must look deeper. Perhaps she could have too. I would have expected better from such a well respected institution.
That portion goes on further but no further mention of MB/FC.
Source:
https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.phpDaniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis wrote:
This piece also seems a bit more of an opinion piece than an in-depth factual look into fact checkers in general and specifically MB/FC, though it does provide sources, one to MB/FC's home page, one linking to a newsweek article and one liunking to a twitter tweet by one of the article's authors showing his bias against MB/FC. While MB/FC's methodology isn't some sort of super sophisticated, incomprehensible algorithm, it does appear to be a decent way to judge a site based on it's content. It also seems to do a pretty decent job in categorizing web sites based on biases and legitimacy of facts/sources.
Source:
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/heres-what-to-expect-from-fact-checking-in-2019/Did you notice that neither article pointed out any errors made or even where they found flaws in MB/FC's methodology. You would think that an expert giving their expert opinion/assessment would at least show where they find an unresolved issue, wouldn't you? They both offered an opinion of MB/FC's work or lack thereof but neither point out any specific issues. I will ignore them both since both are clearly just the writers own opinion without them even bothering to back up their opinions.
The Critical Critic wrote:
Now for the Wikipedia page for MB/FC. Wikipedia is typically a very fine source for information, sometimes it fails due to A. Nobody has written a page concerning what you want to research, B. Someone has but they were too closely affiliated with what they were writing the page on and it is hardly more than an advertisement for the individual, company or organization the page was written on or C. Someone or several someones have written a page for what you want to research but they either have an agenda(s) or perhaps don't know much on the subject matter and the information may either be biased or severely lacking or perhaps even both. The wikipedia page for MB/FC DOES have a page so it isn't A. in this situation, the page does NOT come off as an advertisement so it isn't B. either, The page is severely lacking and it does in some ways come off as a hatchet job on MB/FC so perhaps C. MAY apply here.
I have often times gone to Wikipedia to quote some of what they say on certain subjects and in many cases, what I quote, often times in just one of several quotes taken from same Wikipedia page is often times larger than the entirety of the Wikipedia page for MB/FC. The page for MB/FC is definitely severely lacking information and it doesn't appear that the information it does actually contain shines a fair and balanced/unbiased light on the site. Hopefully more contributors will happen by and add to it and confirm the information or reject inaccuracies.
As for the last link you provided... Absolutely NO sources provided, the writer comes off as someone angry with MB/FC over something though I couldn't tell you what that could be considering MB/FC's review of his site which seems to be a decent review if somewhat inaccurate if you only look at the article you linked to.
The writer, Bill Palmer, wrote this about the "Notes" section of the Cosmopolitan review MB/FC did:
Bill Palmer wrote:
“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.”
Here is the ACTUAL "Notes" section from that review:
MB/FC wrote:
Notes: Cosmopolitan is an international fashion magazine for women and has a circulation of over
3 million. 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 and has failed a fact check. Though biased, Cosmo usually publishes sourced information. (D. Van Zandt 11/21/2016)
To help you spot the discrepancies I have chosen to bold the text from before the discrepancy until after the discrepancy in both articles and in both spots to make it easier for you to spot them. The article blasting MB/FC was written 12:32 am EDT April 18, 2017, the review was written (D. Van Zandt 11/21/2016), see an issue here? The review has something in it that isn't in the article and the article has something in it that isn't in the review. the review was written first, the article later.
Overall, since it all appears to be based on opinion with no real criticisms nor errors pointed out, I lend no credence to these claims. If they had pointed out errors made or even errors in the methodology used, then maybe I would have to reconsider my opinion of this site's accuracy, no such evidence was given though. Would you care to show where MB/FC has made an error of judgement on one of their reviews? Of course even if you do find one or even several errors in judgement, they would have to be weighed against the volume of reviews the site has done to figure out a percentage of errors to reviews to decide just how accurate/inaccurate the site is. Another consideration to take into account is that sites get re-reviewed periodically if there is reason to suspect circumstances have changed significantly enough that a re-review is justified.
If you would like to try to find errors in that site's judgement, fact check some sites that they have reviewed and get back to me.