In your reading, did you discover media you can trust? Do they cite their sources and check their facts? Or do such constraints seem to get in the way of a good story, convincing opinion, or solid argument?
Reading Reservations
These reservations among others occurred to me while following the links in a story about Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that appeared in the Science & Technology section of the news website 1440. The snippet contained two articles which contained stories about artificial intelligence ChatGPT programs creating biased narratives about a conservative American professor and an Australian shire mayor. The programs falsely accused the former of sexually harassing his students and the latter of accepting bribes before he ran for office. Two tawdry instances among many others that show artificial intelligence programs cannot be trusted–right?
Down the Rabbit Hole
Perhaps. But dig a little deeper and it turns out that the updated bersion of the bot story correctly identified the mayor as a whistle blower who “was not involved in the payment of bribes.” As for the professor’s implication that the reason why a ChatGPT made up a quote, cited a non-existent article, and referenced a false claim against him is because “the algorithms are no less biased and flawed than the people who program them.” However, his claim that “recent research has shown ChatGPT’s poltical bias” fails to stand up against even casual scrutiny. Following the link to his source reveals that quote comes from an article, “Danger in the Machine: The Perils of Political and Demographic Biases Embedded in AI Systems” which appears on the website for MI, an abbreviation for the Manhattan Institute.
More Sleuthing
OK. At this point, case closed. Or is it? One instance appears on the BBC News web page, the other on the web page of a “leading free market think tank.” Both sources for these links appear reliable, but consider the context in which these articles appear. The BBC is government-owned entity renowned for being “the world’s oldest newscaster” according to Wikipedia; MI or the Manhattan Institute, formerly the Manhattan Iinstitute for Policy Research, formerly the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, is a conservative think tank originally founded in support of supply-side economics and privitization of government services during president Reagan’s administration. Two less-in-common resources would seem likely to be paired in the same article.
The Conundrum
Does this mean both viewpoints are equally valid? Or do both contain biases of their own that mitigate any
objective evaluation of the issue? My procedure: when in doubt in the 21st century, conduct a Google search. The first result of a “media bias” search turned up Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) whose first menu item contains a list of nine bias categories in a continuum ranging from Least Biased to Left Biased to Right Biased to Conspiraacy-Pseudoscience. Each of these categories identifies media outlets, newspapers, websites, and social platforms in alphabetical order from around the world. Each entry is measured and evaluated against a system of standards designed to measure the source’s objectivity, honesty, and reliability.
Site Evaluations
How did the two web sites measure up? About as expected. The BBC ranked slightly left of center on the bias scale, their credibility marred only by their occasional use of emotion-laden headlines and some questionable. left-leaning sources. The Manhattan Institute received a Right bias rating that almost reached Extreme due to their lack of transparency about their funding, their use of poor sources, and one failed fact check. The overall result showed the BBC wavered very slightly to the left of the center point denoting complete objectivity on the MBFC continuum while MI landed on the Extreme right of the MBFC continuum because of its blatant promotion of right-leaning philosophies and causes.
Take-aways
What does this investigation show?
- Tracking down the credibility of content and its sources can be a time-consuming rabbit-hole of a search.
- Even the most reliable sources can fall victim to sensationalized claims and headlines.
- Some news outlets (Radio Free Europe and Al-Jazeera come to mind) are not the biased sources their detractors claim them to be.
- Many impostor sites, both human and AI-written, dispense false information under such banal titles such as the Southwest Minnesota Herald (Metric Media alone drives over a thousand of such impostor web sites that look like legitimate local news sources).
- Though alphabetical, MBFC’s listings tend to cluster around T and A because initial articles are included as part of the title.
Note of Warning
MBFC is only one of several sites devoted to information objectivity and bias-identification. Many media experts regard Snopes as the gold standard in this area. MBFC has its flaws to be sure, e.g. its founder admits that its grading scale is by no means rigorous or scienfific. Still, it does identify and evaluate unexpected and unknown sources which contextualizes the information you and I read and base our opinions/decisions. If an article or website tells a good story or promotes a strong opinion, MSFC is one place you can consult to evaluate the quality and reliabity of the content these media sources use in telling it.
What do you think? Tell us in the Leave a Reply section below.