Assessing Fact Accuracy of Information Sources: MBFC

Saddlebill stork

I routinely use Media Bias/Fact Check primarily to look for the fact reliability of a site. It is also useful to get a feel for how biased a site is. I've checked probably about 40 different sites over the years using MBFC. Their fact accuracy ratings seem to reasonably correspond with the content a source puts out. For that reason, I tend to accept their ratings a reasonably good indicator of a source's quality. For example, the New York Times gets a high accuracy rating with a center-left bias.

Some very biased sources get high or very high fact accuracy ratings, but the extreme sites tend to get mixed or lower fact ratings. Propaganda sites such as RT News tend to get mixed or lower fact accuracy ratings. MBFC comments: “Overall, we rate RT Questionable based on promoting pro-Russian propaganda, promotion of conspiracy theories, numerous failed fact checks and a lack of author transparency.”  RT was given a very low fact accuracy rating.

 

Given all of the sites out there and all of the misinformation, I tend to distrust and ignore sites with a mixed, low or very low fact accuracy rating. Occasionally one of those sites get the facts of a story right, but the info needs to be verified by other sources. That takes time.

Often when a source a person relies on has a low or very low fact accuracy rating, I that point out and link to the MBFC assessment. The most common response to that is a direct attack on MBFC as a biased, lying, amateur and/or bullshit operation funded by George Soros, the Koch Brothers, Hitler, Stalin, etc. This discussion is here to provide me with a link I can use when someone’s sacred ox gets gored and complaining instantly erupts over how awful MBFC is.

Criticisms addressed

Criticism 1: David Van Zandt has been criticized as a democratic, republican or whatever else propagandist because he is the head of the New School, whatever that is. Van Zandt says this about that: “Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting. For the record, he also is not the President of the New School, that is a different Dave Van Zandt.” MBFC was founded in 2015 by van Zandt.

Criticism 2: Donors control the fact and bias ratings thus the entire MBFC site is nothing but a steaming pile of lies and biased propaganda that either must be ignored or civilization will collapse. I wrote to van Zandt yesterday asking about who his main donors are. He responded with this: “Long story short is we do not have large donors to list. We primarily (95%) generate revenue through 3rd party advertising (ie. Google Adsense, we don't pick the ads). We will not be found on Charity Navigator because we are not a charity. We are a for profit or at least break even enterprise.”

Here's that part of the email string.

Van Zandt also emailed me that he put up a page on funding after I raised the issue of funding and it's use as an excuse to dismiss MBFC as reliable: “You're welcome! I seriously thank you. Your mail was the one that got me motivated enough to put up a funding page. Here it is"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/funding/

Dave”

Criticism 3: A post on the Columbia Journalism Review bitterly criticized van Zandt as an amateur armchair analyst who doesn't know diddly about squat and he should be shot dead and his estate billed for the bullet and the assassin’s expenses and service charges. Well, OK, the article didn't say anything about being shot dead, but the tone of it was consistent with that. It was a vicious attack by an arrogant academic, Tamara Wilmer, that takes herself far too seriously.

It turns out, that the CJR hit piece criticized van Zandt’s bias ratings, not his fact accuracy ratings. The CJR article, We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?, includes this: “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.

A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.

Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.”

I wrote to the CJR editors and complained about the crappiness of Wilmer’s hit piece. They never responded back. I take that as evidence that my criticisms of Wilmer are valid.

MBFC says this about its bias ratings: “When determining bias, there isn’t any true scientific formula that is 100% objective. There are objective measures that can be calculated, but ultimately there will be some degree of subjective judgement to determine these. On each page we have put up a scale with a yellow dot that shows the degree of bias for each source. Each page also has a “detailed report” section that gives some details about the source and an explanation of their bias. When calculating bias we are not just looking at political bias, but also how factual the information is and if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources. Therefore, the yellow dot may indicate political bias or how factual a source is, or in many cases, both.”

When I compare MBFC’s bias ratings with how I would rate a site, the two are about the same most of the time. In my opinion, Ms. Wilner’s criticism doesn't amount to a hill of beans. She demands high level precision in something that has inherent subjectivity in it. Van Zandt admits this and that’s about the best that can be done.

Also, bias is much less important than fact accuracy. For most people, it is often easier to spot and deal with bias, e.g., loaded words and phrases, than it is to spot flawed reasoning, lies and partisan, misleading statements about facts, which are often subtle.

Conclusion

In my opinion, MBFC is a reliable source to get a good feel for both the fact accuracy and bias for many news and information sites. For people who don't want to believe MBFC, that is their choice. I will continue to rely on MBFC.

IRREVERENCE

AS per the OPs I put on my own Forum today, I am in an irreverent mood:

adjective: irreverent
showing a lack of respect for people or things that are generally taken seriously.

Put it down to being over-saturated by Covid 19 news, as IF there is NOTHING else happening in the world. OR put it down to having partied too hardily (is that a word?) last night.

In the age of Covid 19, Trump, Rightwing conspiracies, major angst and paranoia, sometimes we need something to chill on.

Alas, we shouldn't be chilling on Corona beer:




As for the TP problem, if Americans weren't SO full of 


we wouldn't have to worry about TP hoarding.

So with Germaine's permission (after all, he is a very serious sort, that is, I THINK Germaine is a "he"), I would invite peeps to post something

Just to help us get over our angst and paranoia!


CHEERS

Parallel Coronavirus Universes: Fox and Non-Fox

Cactus in bloom

Over the last week or so, I've spent some time each day watching Fox News and comparing that to what other cable and non-cable sources are reporting about the pandemic. There is almost no overlap in coronavirus coverage. Each day, Fox downplays the coronavirus infection and heavily criticizes democrats for all sorts of things, especially exaggerating the seriousness of the disease. There was no criticism of Trump by Fox for anything, just endless hyperbolic praise. Any problems are 100% the fault of democrats, the fake news media and whoever or whatever else can be blamed, even if the blame is a lie, a non-sequitur or otherwise makes no sense.

In several interviews on non-Fox outlets, Ezra Klein of Vox mentioned poll data showing that during times when the president downplayed the pandemic, democrats were hoarding toilet paper and sanitizing hand, body and surface wipes but republicans were not. But after the president finally started saying that the pandemic was real and serious, both democrats and some republicans were hoarding. For people siloed in the Fox News and other partisan pro-Trump source universe, they hear essentially nothing about the infection that the non-Fox universe is hearing. They constantly hear that Trump has done the best job any human ever could.

Words, including lies and deceit, have real world consequences.

According to fact checkers, statements by Trump about the pandemic and his handling of it are heavily larded with false statements, misleading statements and vastly exaggerated praise for himself for his brilliant handling of the situation.

Thus, some people who are ignoring public health calls for social distancing and staying at home are not taking this seriously. Some of them may see this as an opportunity to do some shopping while the stores aren't crowded. The information sources they trust, especially the president himself and Fox, are telling them to not worry about this. They have a license from authoritative sources to do business mostly or completely as usual.

All in all, it now seems reasonable to call this the Trump virus or Trumpvirus since he has made things worse. His incompetence, lies and deceit are going to come home to roost. More Americans than would have been the case if the president had acted with competence and honesty are going to die or suffer serious economic damage.

It is now too late for the president to stop the death and economic damage that could have been avoided had he been competent and honest. Because of that, it is fair and balanced to call it the Trumpvirus.


Question: Is it unfair or hyperbolic to shift this much blame to the president?

A “moral imperative” or just the “American way of life?”

Well, I have another personal story to share. :(

I tell you, while I don’t dare say anything to them, in order to keep peace in the family, I’m so disappointed in my so-called “highly educated” step-sons/daughters-in-law (all four have bachelor’s degrees, one has a master’s degree).  All four are devout Christians and Republicans (read still Trump) supporters.  Three of them have an outside-the-home job and one is a home school teacher—granted, she does have credentials for that.  Their ages are 47, 54, 54, & 56.  I.e., they are not unthinking, fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants “kids” anymore.

Yesterday, I was again included in on a text msg between the two families.  Here’s a screen-shot with some redactions.  And btw, one of the families has an 80-ish year old mother living in their residence:

A few questions:

-While I can completely understand necessary trips outside the home (doctor, pharmacy, hopefully curb-side pickup at the grocery store), when a person is literally being paid to stay home and out of the public domain, is there not an ethical duty, a moral imperative, to follow that statewide order? 

-And as practicing Christians, isn’t that moral responsibility even more pronounced?

-As offspring of an aging parent/step-parent (their dad and me), what does that say about lack of deference to (especially seniors’) health concerns?

-Are such non-compliant people part of the larger coronavirus problem, rather than any part of the solution?

-As I so often wonder, is it just me who’s all effed up?? :(

Please explain my stepkids’ mindsets to me, as I don’t get it.

Thinking About the Morality of Less Biased Conscious Reasoning

Ethics: rules provided by an external source, e.g., written codes of conduct in workplaces, or professions, or principles or rules in religions

Free will: (i) the power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate or uncontrolled biological imperative; (ii) the ability to act at one's own discretion; (iii) actions or behaviors that are not pre-determined by genetic, environmental or automatic unconscious responses to stimuli or information

Morals: an individual’s own beliefs regarding good and bad or right and wrong; morality is subjective; people do not always act in ways that accord with their morals

Virtue: (i) a characteristic of our true, natural self; (ii) sometimes, the quality of being morally good; (iii) properties of people who habitually act rightly and they may or may not be following a moral or ethical rule; some believe that virtues are subjective, while others believe that virtues are universal, and thus arguably more objective than subjective

Acknowledgment: This discussion was inspired by an excellent discussion that PD posted on his Books & Ideas blog,  Is Reflective Reason A Virtue?

Free will

Most experts believe humans have no free will based on a lot of empirical data that shows our behavior is dictated by the unconscious mind deciding what to do before we are consciously aware of the decision. Others believe we have at least some free will. It operates as a conscious decision to accept or reject automatic unconscious responses and resulting pre-determined behaviors. One researcher commented: “An unfree will may not be so hard to swallow if we have at least a free unwill.” In other words, human free will amounts to (1) conscious partial or complete veto power over what our unconscious mind wants to believe and/or do, and (2) conscious acceptance of what our unconscious mind wants to believe and do.

For this discussion to make sense, one has to assume that humans have some free will at least when when matters of ethics, morals or virtues are implicated. If we have no free will, as PD points out, then all virtuous behaviors , e.g., conscious reasoning, honesty, fairness or bravery in defense of others, are automatic. In that case, such behaviors cannot be said to be good or bad, or praiseworthy or blameworthy. Absent free will, human behavior just is what it is, leaving the conscious mind with no role in any of it. Speaking of good or bad in that scenario doesn't make much sense. One might like or dislike a certain uncontrolled behavior, but one cannot rationally assign goodness or badness to it.

Less biased conscious reasoning (LBCR)

LBCR is the second core moral value (virtue?) of the pragmatic rationality anti-ideology ideology. From what I understand, it refers to about the same thing that PD and philosopher Nick Byrd calls reflective reason. When one engages in LBCR, e.g., to consider an argument, a hypothesis or a proposed political policy, one is consciously reasoning in a more rational way than when one allows unconscious thinking to control. The unconscious mind is intuitive, emotional, moral, biased and usually tinged with some degree of intolerance, judgmentalism and tribalism.

That is the solution that evolution came up with as a means for the human brain-mind to deal with the world in the Pleistocene epoch, about 2.5 million to 11,700 years ago. That worked to keep humans alive and survive in those times. In modern times, it arguably presents an existential threat to modern civilization and possibly even the humans species itself. Although human minds are probably about the same as those in the Pleistocene, modern threats aren't the same. Most humans alive today do not worry about being attacked by lions or irate hippos.

Can LBCR be considered to be a moral or a virtue? Yes, if one accepts the following logic or reasoning. No, if one doesn’t.

1.The point of elevating it to the status of a moral value is that LBCR can counteract bad decisions the unconscious mind makes based on how modern science understands what is going on when we deal with politics. The unconscious mind is susceptible to emotional manipulation, irrational appeals to personal morals, logical fallacies, biases and a host of other reality and reason[1] distorting human traits.

2. Personal experience indicates that most people (~99%) believe they (1) base their politics on facts, valid truths, and LBCR, and (2) the political opposition does not. Evidence from empirical research shows that, for the most part, that is not true. But the near-universal belief that one should be fact-based and rational about politics is evidence that LBCR is better than the flawed thinking the opposition allegedly relies on.

3. If a widespread belief in a nation or society that X is better than not X, then that could constitute at least one source of authority for considering LBCR to be a moral value.


Questions: Is it reasonable to believe that LBCR is a good moral value? Or, is it something else, e.g., a ‘desirable trait’?


Footnote:
1. Applying logic and reasoning to an issue are quite different modes of operation. The human did not evolve to use logic or be strictly rational in most situations. It evolved to reason about things and apply a soft or fuzzy rationality, usually based mostly (~99% ?) on what the unconscious mind thinks, believes and decides. The unconscious mind gets things right most of the time and there's no problem. It still works great for most things. But when dealing with politics with all of its complexity, opacity, deceit, appeal to logic fallacies, manipulation, misinformation and disinformation, the unconscious mind is mostly out of its depth. We did not evolve minds that can deal rationally with the underlying complexity and subjectivity of things in politics, including objective facts.

Nuclear submarine and tugboat

Scam PACS

Scam PACS are non-profit charities that harvest donations in the name of various worthy causes such as cancer patients and the family of fallen police officers. In fact, most of the money (~90%) goes to companies that operate under laws that govern political action committees or PACs. A Reuters investigation reports:

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – From unmarked strip-mall offices in small-town Alabama, the calls go out across the United States, meant to talk people into giving money for heart-tugging causes like helping breast cancer patients or the widows of fallen police officers. 

Even as they charmed millions from credulous donors, a dozen former callers for two major fundraisers told Reuters that they knew their companies would be keeping the vast majority of it. And the groups they were raising money for weren’t charities at all, but political action committees, which normally are set up to gather funds for candidates or political causes.

“The motto was, ‘Leave your morals at the door,’” said Alexander Lefler, 21, who worked for nearly a year at a call center southeast of Birmingham, Alabama, describing what he saw as high-pressure and deceptive tactics. “We kind of all understood what we were doing was wrong, but I needed a place to live.”

These so-called “scam PACs” and their fundraisers exploit the gray zone between U.S. election finance and state charity fundraising laws, regulators told Reuters. They often are set up as super PACs, groups which in recent years have been empowered by the courts to raise and spend money in unlimited amounts, with little regulation.
But “scam PACs” are not like other political action committees. Rather, they and their fundraisers present the PACs as charities, suggesting they support veterans, firefighters or victims of deadly diseases, for instance. 

In fact, “scam PAC” operators and fundraisers are often old hands of the charity world, with a history of run-ins with regulators, state and federal records show. Some fundraisers work in both worlds, raising money for charities and PACs.

Reuters points out that when an organization operates as a political action committee, it is not subject to the laws governing charity fundraising. Normal charities generally must register with states, disclose their key employees and account for how the money is spent by providing information on how money is spent. That is not true for scam PACs, which are shielded from laws governing charity fundraising.

Aggressive scam PAC telemarketers face lower risk of scrutiny or sanction when engage in PAC fundraising. In essence, it is easy to wrap and hide a political PAC in a real charity.

Reuters that some fundraising companies and PACs constituted a “money-making force, with some ranking near the top fundraisers in the period stretching from January 2017 through mid-2019.” Scam PACs raise $83.1 million during the 2 ½ year period that Reuters analyzed. About 82% of that went to eight fundraising companies. Less than 10%, usually winds up going to any actual political candidate, so these organizations are essentially legal fraud operations. As usual, laws do not require transparency, so the scammers do not have to be honest about what people are donating their money to.

File this one under: Legalized sleaze, protected by law

Addendum: One can go online to see if a charity is legit and how much of a donation actually goes to the cause.

Charity Watch is one site for info in charities: https://www.charitywatch.org/

Charity Navigator is another: https://www.charitynavigator.org/