@ravi_bajnath Perhaps it could be improved by explicitly stating that the Right-Left biases are relative to standard U.S. politics, where CNN is, in fact, Left, and FOX is, in fact, right. I stand strongly by my data source, but I do very much appreciate your contribution with this perspective. Thank you!

@erikgibbons Accuracy and Political Ideology are two separate products, the latter can be left off to legitimize the former. Facts can be checked and verified, but News is an inherently political product. By co-opting an editorialized political filter (MBFC, therefore CFR), Stopaganda becomes propaganda for MBFC. If there is a product that can be created, the user should input, label, and enable filtering of SRPs based on their own ideology, not prescribed by what I would consider to be a terrorist organization (Council on Foreign Relations and their assosciated members). Also to address the assertion, CNN and FOX are for-profit corporate media companies (as opposed to independent media) and are not "Left" (CNN) leaning (See Althusser's Ideological State Apparatus). For-profit news organizations promote the interests of the very few who manufacture consent to invade countries for their natural resources (remember Afghanistan and Iraq?) Part of building a product that is supposed to promote political literacy (Stopaganda) should at least address this as a priority.

@ravi_bajnath I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. To the first point, when I first developed this application, there was a filtering function for FB to filter based how reputable you would require a source to be to NOT get filtered, but I actively decided not to include an option to allow for self-curation because it's entirely counter to my goal by actively enabling echo chamber creation. You may understand why I might take personal offense to the allegation that my product is propaganda. To the second point, for-profit or not, their stories are, in fact, left-skewed or right-skewed. In terms of final product, it doesn't matter who commissioned the material, as it is, in the end, either left or right (or somewhere in between). I'm not trying to upend an an entire political system (which, make no mistake, I believe requires significant change to function healthily), but from an every-day perspective, understanding the typical agendas and, more importantly, relationship a news source has with truth and fact, should be useful to the layman trying to evaluate the trustworthiness of that organization. This brings me to my final point. As I see it, the most important aspect of Stopaganda is not to label who's left, who's right, and who's center, but rather to identify who has a tendency to make things up, and who doesn't (although I think the rudimentary labeling of OpEds is also fairly significant). Regardless of your political affiliations or thoughts on news media, corporations, for-profit stories, etc., failed fact checks are [generally] objective. Whether it's CNN, FOX news, WaPo, NPR, or whatever your Mecca of independent news is, if they lied, they lied, and that is reflected in these reports. My intention was simply to create a useful tool to help end users with media transparency and literacy, but I don't have the time, resources, power, or know-how to effect an all-out media revolution. Again, I genuinely thank you for your perspective, but I respectfully disagree.

@erikgibbons We're practicing our first amendment well, understand that I'm sure we're mutually invested in improving media literacy and I'm exercising well researched literature that is actually well suited for product maturity. By such means, you have enough for an information architecture that can eliminate unintended bias by its maker for a more participatory product. ] However, your qualified metrics are solely based on a (single) source that can be described as propaganda by anyone free to discern that view of those curated published materials (marketing is technically propaganda published by a company, it's a neutral definition depending on intent). PolitiFact, BallotPedia, Verrit (which is one of the sources and a massively abused platform), etc all contain their own editorial bias (and technically have intent, agency, and are agents of propaganda via publications on their platform). It's sound with the need for media (MBFC) and publishing companies to discern some public editorial objective (like the About page) to cover for their financial interests and say whatever on their site. "It doesn't matter who commissioned the material" - yes, it does, because it influences public policy (hence; war, death, suffering -even the current protests). There's multiple fields of academic study dedicated towards propaganda in the (state) media and how outlets (products) can influence public opinion (besides ethics), it's called the politico-media complex. When making politically directed products, we need to consider the consequences of our actions, despite of limitation of resources, there is non-consensual intent in publishing (ex ante considerations). I've laid out a ton of resources to delve into, as there's time to improve the product towards awareness of critical media literacy (as you intended).

@ravi_bajnath - Do you have other data sources you recommend?

@shanander I use a website called Media Bias Fact Check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ They're fantastic. They have a transparent methodology that you can audit yourself, their ratings are explained, and failed fact checks are cited and sourced.