Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is a hater is inherently dishonest.
I did not claim that. I said that anyone who provided an alternative opinion got downvoted by haters who are so fervent they do not care about facts. Disagreements are not downvotes.
I’m not trying to defend every single person who might have downvoted you, only providing you a counter example to hopefully get you to challenge your assumption.
I’m not even talking about myself. That was one of the first comments I made in the thread. I was talking about others who got downvoted for literally saying they like the bot. It had nothing to do with disagreement.
I can give you an example of what I would consider misinformation from MBFC itself in their bias rating of the BBC. It’s misinformation in my view because this particular example exposed the arbitrary and contentious nature of their bias ratings which they present as though they have some kind of rigour behind it. That is simply not the case. For what it’s worth I provided a discussion on this particular topic which I won’t repeat here but hopefully you can see why I would say it spreads misinformation.
Can you go more into what you think is arbitrary and contentious in that rating? As it is, what I see is that they have provided very detailed reasons for their ratings, backed up with sources and statistics, and then provided a multi-faceted rating to cover each part of that.
Again, not trying to defend every single person who’s been in this discussion, but your dismissal of criticism because everyone is just a hater is not justified, because there are plenty of people raising well thought out and genuine concerns.
you’re the first I’ve seen that actually has commented anything even slightly reasonable.
The rating is arbitrary because even MBFC cannot agree with itself on why it gave the rating. It seems to be plucked from the air, with no justification given.
The top level reason they give us ‘biased story selection’. Nowhere in their analysis is this concept defined or even mentioned. Instead the analysis mentions 3rd party research which concludes that the BBC is somewhat right wing on many key issues, go into some audience analysis (completely irrelevant) and then assert that they have a negative tone when discussing Trump, with one single example given.
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think this can credibility be called a detailed analysis when evidently none of it supports the conclusion that the BBC is left wing due to story selection.
I did not claim that. I said that anyone who provided an alternative opinion got downvoted by haters who are so fervent they do not care about facts. Disagreements are not downvotes.
I’m not even talking about myself. That was one of the first comments I made in the thread. I was talking about others who got downvoted for literally saying they like the bot. It had nothing to do with disagreement.
Can you go more into what you think is arbitrary and contentious in that rating? As it is, what I see is that they have provided very detailed reasons for their ratings, backed up with sources and statistics, and then provided a multi-faceted rating to cover each part of that.
you’re the first I’ve seen that actually has commented anything even slightly reasonable.
The rating is arbitrary because even MBFC cannot agree with itself on why it gave the rating. It seems to be plucked from the air, with no justification given.
The top level reason they give us ‘biased story selection’. Nowhere in their analysis is this concept defined or even mentioned. Instead the analysis mentions 3rd party research which concludes that the BBC is somewhat right wing on many key issues, go into some audience analysis (completely irrelevant) and then assert that they have a negative tone when discussing Trump, with one single example given.
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think this can credibility be called a detailed analysis when evidently none of it supports the conclusion that the BBC is left wing due to story selection.