Media Bias Fact Check

From Conservapedia

Media Bias Fact Check is a left-wing "fact-checker" owned by leftist Dave Van Zandt which purports to monitor bias in the media.

1 Political bias
2 English language errors
3 Criticism
4 External Links
5 References

Political bias[edit]

See also: Conservapedia Derangement Syndrome

In terms of political perspective it is similar to Snopes, and most of Media Bias Fact Check's assessments are wildly inaccurate.

Conservapedia[edit]

It places Conservapedia at the very end of the right-wing - or "extreme right" - of the political spectrum; it is listed under "Questionable Sources" and described as "border[ing] on hate group status" due to its "consistent negative reporting on LGBTQ, Climate Change, Racism, Border Security and people of color..." even though Conservapedia condemns racism on its website.^[1] Media Bias Fact Check accuses Conservapedia of promoting "conspiracies" and "fake news". Media Bias Fact Check claims that it "is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria" without providing evidence to support this claim.^[2]

Creation Ministries International[edit]

Its page on Creation Ministries International is almost entirely incorrect, with only three sentences being free of error, and in one instance it spells the organization's name wrong. It frivolously and fraudulently accuses CMI of having "conspiracy" and "pseudoscience," although nothing that CMI does would qualify for the definition of either of these words.^[3]

Others[edit]

Prager University is considered "propaganda,"^[4] and Rebel News is considered "biased based on story selection that always favours the right."^[5]

Media Bias Fact Check considers Breitbart News "extreme" and positioned on the "far-right" of the political spectrum,^[6] despite the fact Breitbart's content is regarded as right-wing by Media Matters and All Sides, meaning that it is between the center-right and the far-right.^[7]^[8] Fox News Channel - which is center to left of center in its online content - is considered strongly right-wing biased and disreputable,^[9] and the neoconservative newspaper Wall Street Journal is considered very biased to the right.^[10] This strategy marks almost all notable news sources one or two more points to the right than is indicated by reporting.

Media Bias Fact Check defends progressive echo chamber Wikipedia as "Least Biased,"^[11] and leftist^[12] RationalWiki repeatedly as "pro-science," while simultaneously calling Conservapedia, "right-wing Christian propaganda."^[13] In a display of ignorance about the history of science, it states that "Christianity is a set of dogmatic beliefs, which is opposed to Science which is a method that strictly avoids dogma" in its Christian Science article.^[14]

Media Bias Fact Check considers the vile, far-left Salon to have "high" factual reporting.^[15] They have also given a group calling themselves the "Lincoln" Project a free pass.^[16]

Media Bias Fact Check also lists far-left Washington Post, and, despite removing information that would damage left-wing causes, this newspaper is rated Center.

English language errors[edit]

Contrary to capitalization rules regarding proper names, Media Bias Fact Check has refused to capitalize the word "Bible" in at least one of its review pages.^[17] It has contradicted itself, stating, "Regional cold snaps have nothing to do with global warming."^[18]

Criticism[edit]

Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.^[19]^[20]^[21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.^[22]

Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.^[23]

On its article listing frequently discussed sources, Wikipedia notes that the consensus among its editors is that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable.^[24]