It pops up all the time, it’s a waste of time and I’m sure it has been used countless of times to discard some piece of information. It doesn’t add up anything productive to the comments, people who comment don’t even say anything they actually think they just “did you know that MBFC says this so it has to be truth?” I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Yeah, it’s a tough problem to solve but I don’t think for it’s a terrible source for getting a feel when someone drops a link from an institution you’ve never heard of. No one really has the time to fact check every article or explore every institution. Agreed the website, and concept, has more than a few flaws
If you find it especially helpful to know what centrist liberals think of a source, then sure, but the fact is that people talk about it like it’s “basically data and not a personal point of view” (not necessarily saying you do) which is catastrophically false.
I hadn’t seen these people (but now have seen it a couple of times) and you have to start somewhere. At its core, it’s just a comment someone is making. It really interesting seeing this group so favourable to banning or setting up an auto-reply
Way to admit that you let yourself to be propagandized. You should always read news critically. It’s easier to assume that everything is trying to push something, than to rely on a fancy graph some random dipshit on the internet created and then read it uncritically
What a way to admit you’re not realistic about the amount of time you have and how long things take
I never said I didn’t read things critically. That not fact checking which takes time beyond noticing bias and logical issues
The contradiction is so glaring that I’m not sure if you read what you write as you heavily imply it
You don’t need to trust the institution, you need to read the article and use brain power to differentiate “propaganda” from actual information. You won’t be able to do much reading the headline, it doesn’t matter if it comes straight out of Putin’s ass hole or from Biden’s dick.
From half of these comments I’m not seeing a lot of brain power used to avoid propaganda and just a lot of people buying into it
If it just ranked an outlets political opinion as left, right or center: no one would really be upset. It’s their effort to rank by credibility, and labeling centrisim as “unbiased” is fundamentally asinine; not “a few flaws”.
There are definitely more axis that could be added but the center isn’t unbiased. The left and right tend to be pretty biased. Plenty in the center is too. Where are you seeing the center labeled as unbiased?
The word “center” implies that it’s less biased/unbiased to the majority of people. It’s what average people see as a “safe” source and allows them to read it uncritically. Media literacy is not as widespread as you think it as, as demonstrated with your handling of this subject. Why are you so obtuse about it?
You can make much sharper criticism than that, because MBFC at sometimes suggests and other times says outright that the center is the least biased (see davel’s comment).