politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The key thing I've found with a lot of questionable sites is they are such a low profile, they fly under the radar. MBFC and other sites don't have a rating on them because they are too new or too low profile.
Lately, our big challenge has been spam. Bots spamming links to central24 dot online. I don't want to give them even an unintentional link. ;)
But if you look them up, they kind of came out of nowhere with no bias or reliability rating. The parent company is something called "ZwadTech" so same there.
There was another one that hit World News that looked OK, even though the design looked like a crappy blog site. I initially allowed it because we don't get a lot of news out of Africa and it's underserved. I was able to vet the story, which was well written and accurate. Same deal, tiny site, nothing on the bias sites.
Then it turned out it was just copy/pasted from another source, so, yeah, that got removed.
For what it’s worth, it’s great to hear that you guys are doing your best to stay on top of this stuff. I appreciate it, and I’m sure the vast majority of the community does as well.
~~I also use Biasly if MBFC doesn't have a record for a particular source. They don't cover everything, either, and they're not as comprehensive (and are AI-based), but it's a somewhat decent second source.~~
I need to re-evaluate Biasly. On further review, it's not entirely clear how they arrive at their ratings for factual reporting and credibility besides "a magic AI does it".
I've started using https://ground.news a lot. They use MBFC for accuracy/bias, and also group news articles on the same news item, so you can see the differences in bias cross the spectrum (as well as the variable titles used). That shows if only one side is reporting on an issue, or how editorialized the article titles are.
(I'm not a marketing person for ground.news, I just like them)