We’re currently working on changing the rules of this community, because we feel there are some gaps in the current rules.

This is what we have so far:

    1. Be nice! Don’t personally attack someone else. Racism and bigotry are not tolerated. Don’t use offensive language, swearing is allowed within reason. Trolling is also not allowed, go back to reddit for that.
    1. Sources should be as unbiased and reliable as possible Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion.
    1. No bots, spam or self-promotion Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
    1. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title is wrong / incorrect, the post will be deleted.
    1. Post should be news Don’t post obvious opinion pieces, very dated news or things that are simply not news. Posts will be removed at the mods discretion.
    1. No duplicate posts If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

We are looking for any feedback you guys might have, including grammer/spell checks (:

If you agree with the rules, they will go in effect in 24 hours.

Thank you!

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 year ago

    Well, that chart claims to show how biased a fact checking site is once again not how accurate it is. What I’m most interested in is historical data and sources. Does X news site regularly post stories that claim certain details as facts that later turned out to be false? Do they provide sources and how reliable are those sources? Do they claim things as factual that at the time are known to be false?

    Having a evolving story with a lot of unknowns is one thing as long as it’s clear what’s speculation or what details are unconfirmed. Once in a while having a mistake in your reporting as long as you own up to that mistake and post a correction is acceptable. Regularly reporting on rumors with little or no corroborating evidence particularly if they’re not very blatantly calling it out as rampant speculation is not acceptable.

    One thing that news sites need to do a better job about is vetting their sources. Fox News in particular massively abuses this. They regularly allow absolute kooks on their news and present them along side well respected experts as if the two are equivalent sources and it gives the false impression that completely unfounded claims have some degree of factuality. This is why historical checking is so important, so that you can see if some news site regularly runs stories that turn out to be false or misleading or that regularly include false or misleading info.