Rating it as though they’ve published something that is untrue (what the average person expects from a factuality rating) when they explicitly haven’t failed fact checks is stupid AF.
So factor that into the bias rating, not the factuality rating, because that is about bias and not whether or not they have published things that are untrue.
So you’re saying I’m right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue.
If it’s not untrue then it shouldn’t affect the factuality rating, not sure why this is hard to get.
Incidentally as another user pointed out in this thread, LGBTQ Nation does label their opinion pieces as such. Until MBFC presents evidence otherwise, I’m going to conclude that what they have deemed “undisclosed opinions” are things like “trans kids exist and deserve protection”.
Again, I think the average person is going to see factuality rating and read it as “how much of their reporting is true or untrue” and not “what amount of their reporting could potentially contain opinions according to the guy that runs MBFC”.
Rating it as though they’ve published something that is untrue (what the average person expects from a factuality rating) when they explicitly haven’t failed fact checks is stupid AF.
Just because an opinion piece doesn’t fail a fact-check doesn’t mean it’s not an opinion piece, and it should be labeled as such
So factor that into the bias rating, not the factuality rating, because that is about bias and not whether or not they have published things that are untrue.
Presenting an opinion as fact (such as not labeling opinion pieces) would be a factuality issue no?
Presenting things that are untrue is a factuality issue. You are describing bias.
So you’re saying I’m right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue. Presenting an opinion as either is a factuality issue.
If it’s not untrue then it shouldn’t affect the factuality rating, not sure why this is hard to get.
Incidentally as another user pointed out in this thread, LGBTQ Nation does label their opinion pieces as such. Until MBFC presents evidence otherwise, I’m going to conclude that what they have deemed “undisclosed opinions” are things like “trans kids exist and deserve protection”.
Did you not see the screenshot that was posted? It is labeled.
Opinions aren’t facts, though. (Even if they contain no misinformation.)
Again, I think the average person is going to see factuality rating and read it as “how much of their reporting is true or untrue” and not “what amount of their reporting could potentially contain opinions according to the guy that runs MBFC”.
Are you inferring that it’s not possible for an LBGTQ+ publication to misrepresent facts?
To me the rating is less about how “pro,” “anti” or “in-between” something is, and more about factual reporting of details
No, which is why my comment specifically pointed out they failed no fact checks.
Yea that’s not at all what I said. But don’t let that get in the way of posting pictures of comments someone else made about unrelated subjects!