The problem is that it doesn’t matter if they publish how they came to their conclusions if how they come to their conclusions is nonsense. Your link is a perfect example. In the bias section there is a paragraph consisting mostly of cruft followed by two sentences attempting to justify a left rating:
One opinion piece on green hydrogen is apparently enough justification for MBFC. I actually can’t even tell if it’s an opinion piece because it doesn’t seem to have the author’s opinion in it anywhere, it’s quoting reporting from elsewhere and a letter.
Doesn’t that seem pretty paper thin? I don’t think they even bother referencing any of the categories from their own methodology in this one.
I feel like I’m the only one that has actually read any of their bias justifications because after you read one I don’t see how can take them seriously at all. Maybe I’m missing something though, or I’m just going mad because lots of folks keep referring to MBFC as a serious organisation.
The issue is that “left / right / center” are entirely subjective. You’re always going to have somebody bitching about “how can they say that’s left-leaning!” no matter what standard you set. What’s important is to make the standard you’re following transparent and to justify how you came to a result. Then people can adjust for what their personal offset may be.
Or mostly likely people will just continue to bitch and call it an arbitrary ranking.
Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective. It also doesn’t mean that it’s not arbitrary. My methodology could be that I roll a dice, a one is left leaning and a six is right leaning. I can be totally transparent and have a clear methodology, but it’s arbitrary.
MBFC’s methodology is totally subjective and arbitrary. It’d be almost a miracle if two people independently followed their methodology and came to the same conclusion. I think I showed how flawed it is with my previous comment, but if you think otherwise I’d be really interested to understand your reasoning.
Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective.
No shit. That’s what I said - it is subjective. But this is a way to quantify that subjectivity in a way that is methodological.
Like - “a lot of rain” is completely subjective. But if I say “I consider 2cm/hr to be ‘a lot’” then that at least lets you understand what I mean when I say “a lot”.
2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.
Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.
Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.
“Subjective” is not the same as “useless” or “arbitrary”.
If you know the types of movies I like then when I give movie ratings you can adjust for that bias. Especially if I publish my review criteria, preferences, etc. You may not agree with my rating, but if you understand it then you can make an informed decision about whether you may like the movie as well.
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter if they publish how they came to their conclusions if how they come to their conclusions is nonsense. Your link is a perfect example. In the bias section there is a paragraph consisting mostly of cruft followed by two sentences attempting to justify a left rating:
One opinion piece on green hydrogen is apparently enough justification for MBFC. I actually can’t even tell if it’s an opinion piece because it doesn’t seem to have the author’s opinion in it anywhere, it’s quoting reporting from elsewhere and a letter.
Doesn’t that seem pretty paper thin? I don’t think they even bother referencing any of the categories from their own methodology in this one.
I feel like I’m the only one that has actually read any of their bias justifications because after you read one I don’t see how can take them seriously at all. Maybe I’m missing something though, or I’m just going mad because lots of folks keep referring to MBFC as a serious organisation.
The issue is that “left / right / center” are entirely subjective. You’re always going to have somebody bitching about “how can they say that’s left-leaning!” no matter what standard you set. What’s important is to make the standard you’re following transparent and to justify how you came to a result. Then people can adjust for what their personal offset may be.
Or mostly likely people will just continue to bitch and call it an arbitrary ranking.
Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective. It also doesn’t mean that it’s not arbitrary. My methodology could be that I roll a dice, a one is left leaning and a six is right leaning. I can be totally transparent and have a clear methodology, but it’s arbitrary.
MBFC’s methodology is totally subjective and arbitrary. It’d be almost a miracle if two people independently followed their methodology and came to the same conclusion. I think I showed how flawed it is with my previous comment, but if you think otherwise I’d be really interested to understand your reasoning.
No shit. That’s what I said - it is subjective. But this is a way to quantify that subjectivity in a way that is methodological.
Like - “a lot of rain” is completely subjective. But if I say “I consider 2cm/hr to be ‘a lot’” then that at least lets you understand what I mean when I say “a lot”.
2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.
Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.
It’s going to always be subjective!!! Nobody is claiming it’s objective!!!
FFS
Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.
“Subjective” is not the same as “useless” or “arbitrary”.
If you know the types of movies I like then when I give movie ratings you can adjust for that bias. Especially if I publish my review criteria, preferences, etc. You may not agree with my rating, but if you understand it then you can make an informed decision about whether you may like the movie as well.
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.