Switzerland has consistently had a center-right majority in govt since 20 years, so yeah this must be BS.
Though to be fair half of our center right majority would be equivalent to or even to the left of most democrats. Just so people in the US know how fucked their overton window is.
I think it’s considered center left based on US politics. Our Overton window has shifted pretty far. The Swiss have universal healthcare and strict gun control. That can’t be right by US standards.
I suggest reading the methodology carefully. Picking a number between 0 and 10 is hardly a robust methodology. Any two people could follow it and come to completely different answers.
The placement of the yellow dot is determined through a composite score derived from four distinct categories: Biased Wording/Headlines, Factual/ Sourcing, Story Choices, and Political Affiliation. Each category is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0. indicating a lack of bias and 10 representing extreme bias. The average of these four scores is then plotted on the scale to indicate the source’s overall Left-Right bias.
I wouldn’t call picking four numbers 'a whole lot more ’ personally. If you actually read some of the bias analysis it becomes more obvious how arbitrary it is.
We may have “universal healthcare” in that everyone every legal resident following the law, the law saying you must purchase health insurance, is technically insured.
But we don’t have public insurance, it’s run by private companies at exorbitant prices with crazy premiums. And since we have such a large insurance /phara industry here, they are in the pockets of the government. Hell, the big insurance and big pharma companies even own shares in our national bank!
Geneva is basically the only canton of 26 to have minimum wage. I’m on 8k per year for example.
Anyways, this isn’t an “I have it worst olympics”. But Switzerland is far inferior to countries who genuinely have “universal healthcare” meaning everyone can have healthcare even if they have 0 money. Instead of having “universal healthcare” through a weird legal loophole that excludes poor people by criminalising them.
In Switzerland, patients pay up to 8% of their personal income towards the cost of a basic insurance plan. If their premiums work out to more than 8% of their income, the government provides a cash subsidy to cover the difference.
My point in this whole thing is that everyone in Switzerland has healthcare and that healthcare is subsidized to be more affordable than in the US. That would be a left wing program here.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter if they publish how they came to their conclusions if how they come to their conclusions is nonsense. Your link is a perfect example. In the bias section there is a paragraph consisting mostly of cruft followed by two sentences attempting to justify a left rating:
One opinion piece on green hydrogen is apparently enough justification for MBFC. I actually can’t even tell if it’s an opinion piece because it doesn’t seem to have the author’s opinion in it anywhere, it’s quoting reporting from elsewhere and a letter.
Doesn’t that seem pretty paper thin? I don’t think they even bother referencing any of the categories from their own methodology in this one.
I feel like I’m the only one that has actually read any of their bias justifications because after you read one I don’t see how can take them seriously at all. Maybe I’m missing something though, or I’m just going mad because lots of folks keep referring to MBFC as a serious organisation.
Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective. It also doesn’t mean that it’s not arbitrary. My methodology could be that I roll a dice, a one is left leaning and a six is right leaning. I can be totally transparent and have a clear methodology, but it’s arbitrary.
MBFC’s methodology is totally subjective and arbitrary. It’d be almost a miracle if two people independently followed their methodology and came to the same conclusion. I think I showed how flawed it is with my previous comment, but if you think otherwise I’d be really interested to understand your reasoning.
2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.
Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.
Because the bias rating methodology of MBFC is a a joke.
Switzerland has consistently had a center-right majority in govt since 20 years, so yeah this must be BS.
Though to be fair half of our center right majority would be equivalent to or even to the left of most democrats. Just so people in the US know how fucked their overton window is.
I think it’s considered center left based on US politics. Our Overton window has shifted pretty far. The Swiss have universal healthcare and strict gun control. That can’t be right by US standards.
It’s true that it’s based on US standards, but it’s also worth pointing out that the rating itself is completely arbitrary.
They clearly list the methodology they use on their website.
I suggest reading the methodology carefully. Picking a number between 0 and 10 is hardly a robust methodology. Any two people could follow it and come to completely different answers.
There is a whole lot more to it than that. You can read it here.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
I wouldn’t call picking four numbers 'a whole lot more ’ personally. If you actually read some of the bias analysis it becomes more obvious how arbitrary it is.
The rubric is literally right below what you quoted
The categories are as follows:
Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story?
Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well-sourced evidence.
Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.
Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? Who do the owners support or donate to?
Just because it is a qualitative and not a quantitative assessment doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary.
We may have “universal healthcare” in that
everyoneevery legal resident following the law, the law saying you must purchase health insurance, is technically insured.But we don’t have public insurance, it’s run by private companies at exorbitant prices with crazy premiums. And since we have such a large insurance /phara industry here, they are in the pockets of the government. Hell, the big insurance and big pharma companies even own shares in our national bank!
As much as it sounds like you don’t like what you have, it’s still better than the US.
It’s like the US but if it was illegal to not have health insurance, so literally being poor is illegal.
When someone says “universal healthcare” it sounds a lot better than that.
Gross Geneva monthly minimum wage is CHF 4426 or $4,940 according to a quick Google. In the US it’s $1,330.
Edit. Even the highest US local minimum wage of $17 an hour is $2,992 a month.
Geneva is basically the only canton of 26 to have minimum wage. I’m on 8k per year for example.
Anyways, this isn’t an “I have it worst olympics”. But Switzerland is far inferior to countries who genuinely have “universal healthcare” meaning everyone can have healthcare even if they have 0 money. Instead of having “universal healthcare” through a weird legal loophole that excludes poor people by criminalising them.
https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/switzerland.php
My point in this whole thing is that everyone in Switzerland has healthcare and that healthcare is subsidized to be more affordable than in the US. That would be a left wing program here.
The household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is $39KUSD for Switzerland and $51KUSD for America.
Removed by mod
The problem is that it doesn’t matter if they publish how they came to their conclusions if how they come to their conclusions is nonsense. Your link is a perfect example. In the bias section there is a paragraph consisting mostly of cruft followed by two sentences attempting to justify a left rating:
One opinion piece on green hydrogen is apparently enough justification for MBFC. I actually can’t even tell if it’s an opinion piece because it doesn’t seem to have the author’s opinion in it anywhere, it’s quoting reporting from elsewhere and a letter.
Doesn’t that seem pretty paper thin? I don’t think they even bother referencing any of the categories from their own methodology in this one.
I feel like I’m the only one that has actually read any of their bias justifications because after you read one I don’t see how can take them seriously at all. Maybe I’m missing something though, or I’m just going mad because lots of folks keep referring to MBFC as a serious organisation.
Removed by mod
Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective. It also doesn’t mean that it’s not arbitrary. My methodology could be that I roll a dice, a one is left leaning and a six is right leaning. I can be totally transparent and have a clear methodology, but it’s arbitrary.
MBFC’s methodology is totally subjective and arbitrary. It’d be almost a miracle if two people independently followed their methodology and came to the same conclusion. I think I showed how flawed it is with my previous comment, but if you think otherwise I’d be really interested to understand your reasoning.
Removed by mod
2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.
Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.
Removed by mod
Yes, that’s how national media in democratic countries work. UK’s BBC, France’s FranceInfo, Germany’s ZDF work similarly.