you've established that you have no real articulable criteria for rating sources - Lapsody

----------------

A while back I spent more time than I should have digging deep into Media Bias Fact Checkers website. I posted about that odyssey here. The bottom line the "authority chain" led back eventually to a few people, recruited by somebody well respected in media, who as best I can figure appointed themselves to the lofty position of "Fact Checkers", a very noble sounding profession.

But there was nothing to establish their claim of possessing the skills to make such judgements. Granted they did have a system they explained very well that subjectively rated a publisher on a number of metrics and then mathematically combines these ratings into a final score. But at the root of it were subjective scores, assigned by humans of unknown bias, to various criteria. That was more or less the end of the trail.

I will give MBFC some credit for designing what appeared to be a decent methodology, but nothing to convince me their conclusions are dispositive.