• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Semafor - (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

    LEAST BIASED
    These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

    Overall, we rate Semafor Least Biased based on providing counter-arguments to stories that differ from the author’s perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information.

    Detailed Report
    Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Website
    Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

    History
    Launched on October 19, 2022, Semafor is a news website that hosts 8 newsletters. The website was co-founded by Ben Smith, a media columnist at The New York Times, and Justin Smith, a Bloomberg Media CEO. According to their about page, “We’re exposing the architecture of our original journalism in an effort to rebuild trust from our audience. Our journalists are experts in their own right — but they also know the difference between the facts and their analysis. Our “Semaform” structure makes clear the lines between facts, analysis, opinion, counter-narratives, and global perspectives.”

    Funded by / Ownership
    The website was funded with $25 million in private capital. Advertising and sponsorships generate revenue. However, according to CNBC, Semafor will move to a paywall and subscription model within 18 months.

    Analysis / Bias
    The Semafor website features 8 different newsletters: Flagship, Principals, Business, Technology, Climate, Africa, Americana, and Media. News is reported in their “Semaform” format featuring sections for straight facts, the reporter’s analysis, and counter-narratives. Each story is broken down as follows:

    • The News
    • The Reporter’s View (or analysis)
    • Room For Disagreement (or counterargument)
    • The View From (or different perspectives on the topic)
    • Notable (or some of the best other writing on the subject)
    • The website also features news aggregation, where they “distill news, analysis, and opinion from a global range of sources,” summarized so “readers don’t have to search the internet trying to triangulate the truth.”

    Articles and headlines use moderately loaded emotional language such as this Russia headed for demographic disaster due to war. All articles reviewed rely on credible sources such as Bloomberg, New York Times, and Foreign Policy.

    Editorially, more stories favor the left, such as this Donald Trump’s plan to kill mail ballots in Pennsylvania. A biased quote from the author reads, “Trump’s involvement in the new attack on Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law puts pressure on the state’s divided Republicans to pick a side.” However, due to their Semaform style, a counterpoint is given to balance the author’s point of view. Generally, the news is factual and well-sourced, while viewpoints tend to favor the left slightly. However, we will initially rate them as least biased based on offering counterpoints to their liberal-leaning perspectives. As the site matures and produces more content, we will re-evaluate and makes changes accordingly.

    Failed Fact Checks

    • None in the Last 5 years

    Overall, we rate Semafor Least Biased based on providing counter-arguments to stories that differ from the author’s perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information. (D. Van Zandt 10/19/2022)

    Source: https://www.semafor.com/

    Last Updated on June 30, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Propaganda outlets can quickly be recognized by constant outrageous claims without any evidence except “trust me bro”.

      You can’t debunk my claim by linking MBFC which is also in the Zionist propaganda hole. Evidence from MBFC itself:

      The Grayzone:

      Analysis / Bias:

      The Grayzone produces in-depth journalism from a far-left perspective such as this The US is turning oil-rich Nigeria into a proxy for its Africa wars. All stories reviewed were properly sourced from mostly credible media and information sources.

      But their rating score is:

      MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

      Furthermore they use foreignpolicy .com to “debunk” grayzone which doesn’t even try to hide their Zionism:

      Germany Needs to Step Up on Israel-Palestine

      And of course blaming Egypt for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza instead of israel.

      Guess what FP’s rating is? MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

      And then we have Radio free Asia in the debunking section, which I ironically heard about recently in a video from BadEmpanada and is quickly proven to be a propganda outlet.

      MBFC Credibility Rating? HIGH CREDIBILITY.