I’m not necessarily fully agreeing with OP’s thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a “highly credible” source.
I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can’t link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)
Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC’s credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.
And, for future reference to others, if you flag such posts and also make a comment in the post for why that source is unreliable, it saves us a lot of time trying to figure out whether or not that is true (although the bot is a help despite it’s flaws).
Plus, even reliable sources can be wrong. It’s a lot easier for us to evaluate whether a post is misinformation if we’re told why the person reporting it believes it to be.
Edit: Also, although I don’t remember this, you must have posted it to World News because I’m not a News moderator.
Not really a big deal, I just didn’t want people to think I’m a mod where I’m not.
Edit: Also, I did not code the bot and I really didn’t have much input in it. The only reason I’m not wholly against it is that there really aren’t any other options without each source being evaluated individually. I agree there is a Zionism issue, but I also think that isn’t really a factor if it is a story about, for example, the famine in Sudan. If someone has a better site for rating media bias, please pass it along and I will let the person behind the bot know.
I’m not necessarily fully agreeing with OP’s thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a “highly credible” source.
I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can’t link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)
Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC’s credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.
I don’t take any issue with critiquing how MBFC does their ratings. But this post is a lot more than that
Yeah this post provides direct evidence that MBFC rates Zionist propaganda as credible and that’s very inconvenient for your narrative.
And, for future reference to others, if you flag such posts and also make a comment in the post for why that source is unreliable, it saves us a lot of time trying to figure out whether or not that is true (although the bot is a help despite it’s flaws).
Plus, even reliable sources can be wrong. It’s a lot easier for us to evaluate whether a post is misinformation if we’re told why the person reporting it believes it to be.
Edit: Also, although I don’t remember this, you must have posted it to World News because I’m not a News moderator.
Yup, sorry you’re right - it was World News, not News.
Not really a big deal, I just didn’t want people to think I’m a mod where I’m not.
Edit: Also, I did not code the bot and I really didn’t have much input in it. The only reason I’m not wholly against it is that there really aren’t any other options without each source being evaluated individually. I agree there is a Zionism issue, but I also think that isn’t really a factor if it is a story about, for example, the famine in Sudan. If someone has a better site for rating media bias, please pass it along and I will let the person behind the bot know.