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.
Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.
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
Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.
Removed by mod
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.