The majority of college graduates eventually end up with a career that wasn't their original field of study. And lots of people have hobbies; quite a few are really good at it, particularly when they studied it for four years.

Media bias fact check has no credibility

Hunh. You might read the "reception" section of their Wikipedia article, which basically boils down to "it's not perfect but it's pretty darn good, and when they compare it to academic research on the sites in question, it's pretty accurate".

[–] pelikan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You might read the “reception” section of their Wikipedia article

The same link literally says:

Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as "generally unreliable", recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view

[–] athos77@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I like how you gloss over the six paragraphs that say "academics and researchers generally agree that it's pretty good and reliable" and focus on the single sentence that says "Wikipedia people don't use it on Wikipedia".

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

As you glossed over the bits that said it was unreliable to focus on the ones that said it was reliable.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Really? Cause this sure sounds like you’re wrong:

Are you really trying to argue that an undergraduate degree in communication before going into a different field constitutes a serious background in journalism and academic research? That's ludicrous.

The majority of college graduates eventually end up with a career that wasn’t their original field of study.

And that's fine, I did it myself.

But I would never try to pass myself off as an expert in a different field to the one I'm in. Especially a field that wasn't my undergraduate degree either.

Hunh. You might read the “reception” section of their Wikipedia article

Are you doing a bit right now?

[–] athos77@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You said, and I quote, that this was someone who

doesn’t even have any background in journalism or academic research;

And I point out that he has a degree in Communications, and you say that's not valid?

Communications includes Journalism and, depending on the university, you might be given a degree in Communications even though your field was journalism. Hell, my dad studied Computer Science for five years but his degree is labeled "Mathematics" because CS was part of the Math department at the time. My cousin studied Archeology but his degree is technically in Anthropology for the same reason. It's entirely possible to study Journalism and end up with a degree in Communications.

And considering that he spent four years of his life studying it, and another twenty working on it as his full-time 'hobby', and that the majority of people who study these things find his results to be valid, should speak to the overall quality of the site. But not everyone finds something in life that they can be this passionate about, to work at it unpaid for a quarter-century, so I can understand if you find it hard to believe.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago

An undergraduate degree in communications is not a background in journalism or academic research mate. Journalism is it's own degree, usually.

It certainly doesn't mean anyone should treat your personal opinions on what media outlets are credible with any more weight than any other rando.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

And let’s not miss the fact that Wenstrup, who is a podiatrist, didn’t publish transcripts from the hearings. Only his own personal musings, which I’ll mention again, as a podiatrist. If I have bunions on my feet, I’d (likely not) consider calling him. But not about epidemiology.