Media Bias/Fact Check

[[File:MediaBiasFactCheckLogo.png|165px|right|thumb|Despite what they show you, no, MBFC is not a podcast, talking or comedy show.]]{{media}}
'''''Media Bias/Fact Check''''' ('''MBFC''') is a fact-checking website which indexes and ranks websites by [[Political spectrum|left- or right wing]] [[bias]] (each website is ranked from "extreme left" to "least biased" to "extreme right") and by quality of factual reporting (each website has a "[[conspiracy theory|conspiracy level]]" and a "[[pseudoscience|pseudo-sci level]]"). Although MBFC's methodology is ultimately [[Objective|subjective]],<ref name='methodology'>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ Methodology], MediaBiasFactCheck</ref> it appears to be fairly consistent and reliable in its ratings. MBFC has extensions for both {{website|Firefox|https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check-icon/}} and {{website|Chrome|https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/official-media-bias-fact/hdcpibgmmcnpjmmenengjgkkfohahegk}}. 

Besides evaluating media bias and factual reporting, they have also made a profile of the current state of media in 36 countries with the aim of expanding to 180 countries by the next year<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/country-profiles/ Country Profiles — MBFC]</ref> and a report page that includes short excerpts from credible and unbiased news articles and fact checks selected by Dave Van Zandt.<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/category/report/</ref> It is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because it is considered a "self-published" source.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources</ref>

==About the website==

===Contributors===
According to its "About" page,<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/</ref> MBFC was started by Dave Van Zandt in November 2015.<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/</ref> Other than Van Zandt, the website has 
five
 now nine other volunteers who perform source research, writing and assist in fact checking, who are:<ref name='FAQ'/> 
*Aaron O’Leary – Writer/Contributor
*Karen O’Connor Rubsam – Writer/Contributor
*Kenneth White – Writer/Contributor
*Jim Fowler – Writer/Contributor
*Dennis Kelley – Research
*Michael Allen – Research
*Faith Locke Siewert – Research
*McKenzie Huitsing – Research
*Mike Crowe – Extensions – Web Development

Not much additional information about Van Zandt is publicly available online. A LinkedIn profile states that a Dave Van Zandt is the former owner of Van Zandt Webs and studied at William Paterson University of [[New Jersey]].<ref>[https://alumnius.net/william_paterson_uni-8888-5#id23561721 Dave studied at the William Peterson University]</ref> From the F.A.Q:<ref name='FAQ'>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frequently-asked-questions/</ref>

{{quotebox|<i>Media Bias Fact Check</i>, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions. […] Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.}}

===Methodology===
According to their FAQ page, their methodology "is a simple tool that provides a general rating of bias" but it "is not a scientifically proven methodology."<ref name='FAQ'/> Their methodology page contains this disclaimer: 

{{quotebox|Disclaimer: The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source's bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.<ref name='methodology'/>}}

Sites are rated on a 0-10 scale by Van Zandt and his team on 4 categories, biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices and political affiliation.<ref name="methodology" />

[[File:BiasArrow.png|400px|right|thumb|The bias arrow used by the MBFC.]]
The scores of each of these (biased wording, factuality, story choices, political affiliation) is averaged to give one bias score.
Scoring and classification on bias level is as follows:
*0 – 2 = Least Biased (best)
*2 – 5 = Left/Right Center Bias
*5 – 8 = Left/Right Bias
*8 – 10 = Extreme Bias (worst)

Classifications on bias is as follows:
*Extreme [[left]]
*Left
*Left-center
*Least Biased
*Right-center
*Right
*Extreme [[right]]

[[File:FactualReporting.png|300px|right|thumb|The factual reporting classification table used by the MBFC.]]
Scoring and classification on factual reporting is as follows (increasing by failed fact-checks):
*0 - 0 = Very High
*1 - 3 = High
*3 - 4 = Mostly Factual
*5 - 6 = Mixed
*7 - 9 = Low
*10    = Very Low

[[File:ConspiracyLevel.png|350px|right|thumb|The conspiracy level used by the MBFC.]]
Classifications on [[conspiracy]] level is as follows:
*Mild
*Moderate
*Strong
*[[Tinfoil hat|Tin Foil Hat]]

[[File:PseudoscienceLevel.png|350px|right|thumb|The pseudoscience level used by the MBFC.]]
Classification on [[pseudoscience]] level is as follows:
*Mild
*Moderate
*Strong
*[[Quackery]]

[[File:ProscienceBanner.png|300px|right|thumb|The banner used by the MBFC to designate proscience sources.]]
[[File:SatireBanner.png|300px|right|thumb|The banner used by the MBFC to designate satire.]]
Other classifications are as follows:
*Questionable Sources (''FN'' - stands for ''fake news'' - or ''Q'' in MBFC's official browser extensions)
*[[Conspiracy]]/[[Pseudoscience]]
*Pro-[[science]]
*[[Satire]]

For each source, a minimum of 10 headlines are reviewed and a minimum of 5 news stories reviewed. News reporting is reviewed first and then followed by looking at editorial and opinion pieces. If there is still not enough clear evidence, searching methods for articles on the site such as “Republican”, “Democrat”, “Liberal”, “Conservative”, “Trump”, “Clinton” etc. are used until the political affiliation is confirmed. This process can be time-consuming or very simple depending on the source.

====Example: [[CNN]]====
[[File:CNNbias.jpeg|300px|right|thumb|CNN rating by MBFC]]
[[File:LowRating.png|300px|right|thumb|The rating for [[David Icke]] and many other similar conspiratorial sites by MBFC]]
Here is an example of how CNN would be (and is) scored with the same methodology.

<b>Biased Wording</b> = 5 (CNN uses moderate biased words that favor liberals and headlines typically match the story)<br/>
<b>Factual/Sourcing</b> = 4 (CNN is mostly trustworthy for providing evidence and sources, but sometimes jumps the gun on breaking stories)<br/>
<b>Story Choices</b> = 7 (CNN mostly favors pro-liberal stories and publishes negative conservative stories)<br/>
<b>Political Affiliation</b> = 7 (CNN mostly favors [[liberal]] [[ideology]] through content and wording)<br/>

Total = 23<br/>
Average 23/4 = 5.75<br/>
5.75 = <b>Moderate Left Bias</b><br/>

<b>Factual Reporting</b> = 6 (See factual/sourcing above. Here, 0 is not perfect but it is the opposite)<br/>
6 = <b>Mixed</b>

===Trusted websites===
MBFC's most trusted fact checking websites<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fact-check-resources/</ref> include: 
{{div col |cols=2}}
*[[PolitiFact]]
*[[FactCheck.org]]
*{{wpl|Center for Responsive Politics|Open Secrets}}
*[[Snopes]]
*{{wpl|Sunlight Foundation}}
*{{wpl|Poynter Institute}}
*Flack Check
*{{wpl|TruthOrFiction.com|Truth or Fiction}}
*[[Hoax-Slayer]]
*Fact Checker by the [[Washington Post]]
{{div col end}}

==Reception from nutters==
Predictably, MBFC has drawn ire from several of the websites that file under "[[Conspiracy]]/[[Pseudoscience]]" or "Questionable Sources" — typically, in light of their regular publication of [[fake news]] and/or general [[bigot]]ry. For example, [[WND]] was rated by MBFC as having mixed factual reporting and right-wing bias.<ref name='WND MBFC'>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-net-daily-wnd/</ref> WND then included MBFC in their article titled "Phony Baloney: The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers".<ref>http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/</ref> [[Zero Hedge]], a website rated as conspiracy-pseudoscience,<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/</ref> posted the same article on their website.<ref>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/exposing-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers</ref> Media Fact Watch<ref group=note>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-fact-watch/ MBFC rating: conspiracy-pseudoscience. Factual reporting: mixed].</ref> wrote their own negative article about fact checkers which also included MBFC.<ref>http://www.mediafactwatch.com/2017-02-24-dont-believe-these-news-checkers-that-claim-fake-news-is-real.html</ref>

==Reasonable criticism==
The Columbia Journalism Review has described MBFC reviews as subjective assessments that "leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in".<ref>[https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?] by Tamar Wilner (January 9, 2018) ''Columbia Journalism Review''.</ref>  According to the methodology listed on the MBFC website, reviews may be assigned after reviewing as little as ten headlines and five articles,<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ Methodology] (April 15, 2021) ''Media Bias/Fact Check''</ref> which may only represent but a sliver of all the content said source produces.  The Poynter Institute has also criticized the method of MBFC as "in no way scientific".<ref>[https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/heres-what-to-expect-from-fact-checking-in-2019/ Here’s what to expect from fact-checking in 2019] by Daniel Funke & Alexios Mantzarlis (December 18, 2018) ''Poynter Institute''.</ref>

MBFC has rated some propaganda outlets as being "least biased". For example: 
*The [[United States]]' Voice of America<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/ Voice of America] (8/15/2016) Updated (7/5/2017) Media Bias/Fact Check</ref> and allied Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-europe-radio-liberty/ Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty] (M. Huitsing 5/8/2018) Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty] Media Bias/Fact Check</ref> which are considered to be propaganda outlets by some,<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/uncle-sam-got-a-shiny-new-propaganda-bullhorn-for-christmas/ Uncle Sam Got a Shiny New Propaganda Bullhorn for Christmas: A new partnership is turning Radio Free Europe into an anti-Russia propaganda machine.] by James Carden (January 6, 2016) ''The Nation''.</ref><ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/americans-finally-have-access-american-propaganda/313305/ Americans Finally Have Access to American Propaganda] by Elspeth Reeve (Jul 15, 2013) ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and are also regarded as sources to be treated carefully by Wikipedia.<ref name=pus/>
*Until October 2018 MBFC rated [[China]]'s Xinhua News Agency as "least biased",<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181010154416/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/ Least Biased] Media Bias/Fact Check (archived from October 10, 2018).</ref> but the rating has since changed to the somewhat more reasonable "left-center bias".<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/xinhua-news-agency/ Xinhua News Agency] (M. Huitsing, 1/6/2018; Updated by D. Van Zandt 10/14/2018) Media Bias/Fact Check.</ref> Xinhua has been criticized by Reporters Without Borders as being the "world's biggest propaganda agency",<ref>[https://rsf.org/en/reports/xinhua-worlds-biggest-propaganda-agency Xinhua: the world's biggest propaganda agency] (September 30, 2005 - Updated on January 20, 2016) Reporters Without Borders.</ref><ref name=rsf>[https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/Report_Xinhua_Eng.pdf The World's Biggest Propaganda Agency] by Gautier Battistella et al. (2005) Reporters Without Borders.</ref> and is regarded by [[Wikipedia]] as a source "to treat carefully".<ref name=pus>{{wpa|Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources|Potentially unreliable sources}}</ref> While seemingly avoiding the outright conspiracy peddling of fellow state media outfits [[Press TV]] and [[RT]] (both considered questionable sources by MBFC), Xinhua may still be using techniques that tend to evade MBFC's rating system: government-picked journalists, political indoctrination of trainee journalists, recapitulation of government reports, allowing some critical or sensitive reporting in English but not in Chinese, no demarcation between the Communist Party and Xinhua administrators, defense of repressive regimes (e.g., [[Zimbabwe]], [[Burma]], [[Sudan]] and [[Pakistan]]), and preparation of "internal reports" that are intended only for Communist Party leaders.<ref name=rsf/> An analysis of the French-language Xinhua site found that 80% of news stories about China were positive, indicating that there is a systematic absence of critical reporting.<ref name=rsf/>

Other questionable ratings: 
*''[[Falun Gong#Epoch Times|Epoch Times]]'' was evaluated as 'least biased' with factual reporting 'high' as of September 7, 2017.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170919082752/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ The Epoch Times] ''Media Bias/Fact Check'' (archived from September 7, 2017).</ref> By November 4, 2018, the rating was changed to 'right-center' with 'high' factual reporting.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181104013029/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/  The Epoch Times] ''Media Bias/Fact Check'' (archived from November 4, 2018).</ref> By December 30, 2018, after it was pointed out to MBFC that ''Epoch Times'' had regularly been reporting uncritical [[pseudoscience]] in their "Beyond Science" section, their rating was changed to 'mixed' factual reporting.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181230103357/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ The Epoch Times] ''Media Bias/Fact Check'' (archived from December 30, 2018).</ref> By July 28, 2019, it was clear that ''Epoch Times'' had entered full-[[Donald Trump|Trump]] mode, and their rating changed to 'right bias'.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190728085608/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ The Epoch Times] ''Media Bias/Fact Check'' (archived from July 28, 2019).</ref>  As of its most recent update, it is listed as a "Questionable Source" with "Low Credibility".
*Prior to its re-evaluation as a conspiracy website in November 2018,<ref name="reevaluated">https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/re-evaluated-sources/</ref><ref group=note>MBFC's page on ''American Herald Tribune'' was rewritten when it was re-evaluated and the quote ("usually factually based and sourced") has been removed. According to the [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-herald-tribune/ new description]: {{quotebox|The main theme of the website is human rights. Most articles do not utilize loaded language and many are sourced properly. Sounds good right? That is only part of the story. As I mentioned there is a wide variety of writers, some of which are conspiracy theorists. [...] While many articles on this website are credible there are just as many that are in the tin foil hat realm of conspiracy theories. Overall, we rate the American Herald Tribune a Conspiracy website.}}</ref> ''American Herald Tribune'' was described as "usually factually based and sourced".<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-herald-tribune/</ref> The website has articles describing [[LGBT]] people as "perverts",<ref>https://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/410-lgbt-hillary-clinton.html</ref> the [[Sandy Hook massacre]] as a "staged event",<ref>https://ahtribune.com/world/americas/academic-freedom/2067-james-tracy.html</ref> and [[9/11]] as a "false flag".<ref>https://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1191-zionist-question.html</ref> The editor of the website, Anthony Hall,<ref>https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-trending-just-promoted-a-misleading-story-about-a-m</ref> hosts a YouTube program called ''False Flag Weekly News'' and has supported an "open debate" on the [[Holocaust]] in a video for a [[Holocaust denial|Holocaust denying]] organisation.<ref>https://globalnews.ca/news/2973528/u-of-l-actively-engaged-after-anti-semitic-message-posted-on-professors-facebook/</ref><ref>https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/a37xja/alberta-professor-who-thinks-jews-behind-911-allowed-to-return-to-teaching</ref><ref>https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bnai-brith-anthony-hall-antisemitic-petition-1.3784968</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUl35RtYFXQ</ref> The website also includes articles written by Robert David Steele<ref>https://ahtribune.com/author.html?id=1011</ref> who famously believes "there is a colony on [[Mars]] that is populated by children who were kidnapped and sent into space on a 20-year ride."<ref>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nasa-denies-that-its-running-a-child-slave-colony-on-mars</ref>

*MBFC had stated, a "factual search reveals a Pants on Fire claim" by ''[[Right Wing Watch]]''.<ref>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/right-wing-watch/</ref> However, they linked to an article which mentions that Right Wing Watch had reported the claim from right-wing pastor Paul Begley that Melania Trump ordered the White House to be completely exorcised before moving in.<ref>https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/feb/19/yournewswirecom/fake-news-claims-melania-trump-hired-exorcist-clea/</ref><ref>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-pastor-says-melania-trump-ordered-white-house-to-be-completely-exorcised-before-moving-in/</ref> Right Wing Watch highlights fringe views from right-wing figures and is clearly not endorsing them, such as the article titled "Paul Begley Says Kate Spade And Anthony Bourdain May Have Been ‘High Profile Sacrifices Of The Illuminati’".<ref>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/paul-begley-says-kate-spade-and-anthony-bourdain-may-have-been-high-profile-sacrifices-of-the-illuminati/</ref> Another Right Wing Watch article also specifically stated that "there was no reason to believe that Begley’s [exorcism] story was true or that he was in any position to know about the first lady’s spiritual housecleaning practices."<ref>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/melania-trumps-white-house-exorcism-and-the-far-rights-thirst-for-trump-fan-fic/</ref> MBFC has since corrected this error, and changed the Factual Reporting rating to "High".
*[[Blue Lives Matter]] is rated correctly with "right bias".<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/blue-lives-matter/ MediaBias/ Fact Check page for Blue Lives Matter.] Retrieved April 13, 2020.</ref> However, they were given a "high" factual rating until July 2020 when it was lowered to "mixed". Some of their examples do have neutral language, but fail to mention how articles preface police deaths as "hero down"; other articles, some writtten by the community, others by Sandy Malone, a managing editor, do have loaded, misleading headlines such as "School District Defends AP History Lesson Calling Trump A Nazi And Communist".<ref>Malone, S. (February 24, 2020). "[https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/school-district-defends-ap-history-lesson-calling-trump-a-nazi-and-communist-05x-FvSXhUGMM7vMLVgrYg School District Defends AP History Lesson Calling Trump A Nazi And Communist]". ''Blue Lives Matter''. Retrieved April 14, 2020.</ref> Some articles written by have been sourced from sites Media Bias/Fact Check has rated as "mixed" in accurate reporting including [[James O'Keefe|Project Veritas]] and [[Fox News]], loaded headline included.<ref>Malone, S. (January 15, 2020). "[https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/project-veritas-posts-more-videos-of-bernie-staffers-promoting-killing-opponents-No3lB9F530ut-qr5qmHo-g Project Veritas Posts More Videos Of Bernie Staffers Promoting Killing Opponents]" . ''Blue Lives Matter''. Retrieved April 14, 2020.</ref> They have also promoted a highly misleading article, with a misleading headline, on the effects of hydroxychloroquine and governor's apparently hypocritical approaches to them, and that "doctors all over the world have [been] experimenting with it and seeing success"<ref>Malone, S. "[https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/governor-now-asking-trump-for-virus-drugs-she-banned-after-trump-mentioned-them-ULYFuuQVOU29KowCWgw9KA Governor Now Asking Trump For Virus Drugs She Banned After Trump Mentioned Them']." ''Blue Lives Matter''. Retrieved April 14, 2020.</ref> [https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/03/25/chloroquine-covid-19/ This runs against Snopes's article on hydroxychloroquine], where all success from COVID-19 treatment are only in cell cultures, a very weak line of evidence, and that more is needed. The Blue Lives Matter article also fails to note the distinction between addressing shortage of hydroxychloroquine used to treat malaria compared to using the drug for limited circumstances, emergency use authorization while creating the narrative of apparently hypocritical governors. The site has also used a ''Campus Report'' article as its source of news,<ref>Gantert, Tom (April 16, 2020). [https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/college-educators-worried-their-online-lectures-may-be-exposed-by-conservatives-ajLiky2TpU-30gyZJldxkQ College Educators Worried Their Online Lectures May Be Exposed By Conservatives] ''Blue Lives Matter''. Retrieved April 16, 2020.</ref> which was also rated as "Mixed" from Media Bias / Fact Check<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/campus-reform/ Campus Reform's article on Media Bias / Fact Check]. Retrieved April 16, 2020.</ref> and was lambasted by [[Media Matters]].<ref>Vogel, Pam. (March 29, 2017). [https://www.mediamatters.org/james-okeefe/conservative-dark-money-groups-infiltrating-campus-politics#cr Campus Reform And The Leadership Institute.] ''Media Matters''. Retrieved April 16, 2020.</ref>

Despite a few issues, Media Bias/Fact Check does often correct those errors within a reasonable amount of time, which is commendable. It helps if someone brings the problem to their attention with citations,<ref>[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/corrections-policy/ Corrections Policy] ''Media Bias/Fact Check''.</ref> and the problem is fixed speedily.

==See also==
*[[:Category:Google News Fact Check]] — websites that frequently appear in [[Google]] News' "Fact Check" section

==External links==
*[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com Media Bias/Fact Check]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Skeptics]]
[[Category:Business]]

Categories: Websites, Skeptics, Business