Fake security site Media Bias Fact Check is just one guy running a malicious scam
Amid the growing concern about the veracity of online news outlets, various internet users have begun to scrutinize what they read more carefully to make sure its not fake news before trusting it. And thats a good thing. But theat paranoia has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously create confusion for their own personal amusement or agenda. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called Media Bias Fact Check which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
One look at the Media Bias Fact Check website reveals it to be something that looks like it was created in 1995. Some independent news outlets (including this one) tend to have a bare bones look and feel about their design, in fitting with their non-corporate media parameters. But the site Media Bias Fact Check is trying to position itself as some kind web security firm or media authority, and any scrutiny of the site reveals it to be far from it.
Despite claiming in its tag line to be The most comprehensive media bias resource, the site turns out to simply be one guy named Dave Van Zandt who posts whatever he feels like. He claims to use a strict methodology for assigning bias ratings to various news outlets, but his ratings typically read like the gibberish one might find in an unmoderated comment section in the worst corners of the internet.
For instance, when it comes to Daily Kos, a widely respected political news site, Van Zandts rating consists of Not a credible news source. Blatant left wing bias that is written by bloggers who wont even use their real names. Requires fact and source checking. One of the worst sources on the internet. Thats it; thats his entire rating. To back up his personal opinion of Daily Kos, Van Zandt provides literally nothing in terms of examples or sources. His rating of Kos consists merely of his own brief and unsubstantiated opinion. And then bizarrely, after telling his audience that Kos is biased, he posts a poll asking the public whether Kos is biased.
(more)