The main problem that I see with MBFC, aside from the simple fact that it's a third party rather than ones own judgment (which is not infallible, but should still certainly be exercised, in both senses of the term) is that it appears to only measure factuality, which is just a tiny part of bias.
In spite of all of the noise about "fake news," very little news is actually fake. The vast majority of bias resides not in the nominal facts of a story, but in which stories are run and how they're reported - how those nominal facts are presented.
As an example, admittedly exaggerated for effect, compare:
Tom walked his dog Rex.
with
Rex the mangy cur was only barely restrained by Tom's limp hold on his thin leash.
Both relay the same basic facts, and it's likely that by MBFC's standards, both would be rated the same for that reason alone. But it's plain to see that the two are not even vaguely similar.
The fact that people are so often so ignorant and/or ideologically blinkered that they can't see plain bias when it's staring them in the face is the problem, and relying on a bot to tell you what to believe does not in any way, shape or form help to solve that problem. If anything, it makes it even worse.
I'm having another of those "Damn - I'm still not cynical enough" moments at the thought that anyone would actually believe that Trump could do a better job than anyone else at anything having anything at all to do with the economy.
It'd make sense if the measure of an effective president was their skill at lying, filing false financial reports, dodging creditors and filing bankruptcy - then Trump would clearly be unequalled. But since it's not...?
Since we already have at least two overtly corrupt justices whose entire defense consists essentially of "nobody has the authority to do anything about it so fuck you," and the highlights of their last session include ruling that bribery is entirely legal just so long as the check is postdated and that presidents are completely and totally immune from even being investigated over anything that is in any way connected to anything that might by any stretch of the most fevered imagination be considered an "official act " I have to wonder what it will take to actually hit rock bottom.
I have no doubt that, since they have no integrity, no ethics and no regard for either law or the well-being of the country, we'll see.
Religion, just in and of itself, isn't really the problem. It's just the most notable example of the underlying problem, which is probably best summed up as aggressive tribalism.
People have a compulsive desire for self-affirmation - for assurance that they embody whatever qualities they consider the indicators of "good" people. And by far the easiest way for people to assure themselves of that is to associate those qualities with a label and self-apply that label. That gives them a fellowship of label-wearers who are invested in the same belief, which establishes a feedback loop in which they all assure each other of how [good/right/strong/smart/etc.] they are, and a ready-made set of outsiders they can individually and collectively condemn. And that last is the real problem - since few if any people truly embody the qualities they wish to believe they do, the easiest and most effective way to assure themselves they do is to focus on some designated set of others and on the assertion that they fail to possess those qualities. That allows people to assure themselves that they are at least more [good/right/strong/smart/etc.] than these other people over there.
That's clearly a toxic and antagonistic dynamic that really just serves to divide people up into warring factions, and since it's at least somewhat irrational yet crucial to people's self-affirming self-images, it's a thing that easily gets entrenched and, whenever possible, codified, so that it can be forcibly imposed.
Again, religion is certainly the most common and historically destructive vehicle for that, but it's far from the only one. Most notably, it's also the dynamic underlying virtually all ideology and a great deal of philosophy, not to mention a great many less significant distinctions, ranging from sexual preference to diet to sports fandom.
Now - in the first place, I would say that it would not have been possible to have a world without religion, since the practical purpose of religion is to provide answers to questions for which there's insufficient evidence or knowledge to support nominally legitimate answers, and that lack of evidence and knowledge was an unavoidable part of our history. From the moment that somebody wondered what that big bright thing up in the sky was and somebody else made up an answer for them, religion was inevitable.
Beyond that though - if we were to imagine a world in which religion somehow never came to be, we'd just have had a world in which people would've focused that much more on the other ways in which they divide themselves against themselves, since that desire for self-affirmation exists anyway.
And truth be told, I actually think that's part of the problem with our current world - that a great many people have just shifted from what would in the past been a self-affirming faith in a religion to a self-affirming faith in an ideology or philosophy or political affiliation or some other tribal distinction - that much of what we're seeing today is the same toxicity just based on more secular divisions.
Not that religion has become less of a problem - what it's lost in overall market share, it's undeniably gained in the fervor and aggression of its remaining adherents, but it's also been joined by a wide range of other divisions, each destructive in the same general ways, even if not necessarily to the same degree.
I need to think of a concise way to frame that, because he's not like any five-year-old - he's like Donald Trump as a five-year-old.
Yes - most five-year-olds are the way you describe. But there's that one who not only refuses to share, but yanks toys he doesn't even want away from the other kids just so they can't have them, who throws tantrums over pretty much anything and everything, who can't be trusted with anything delicate or complicated because he'll get mad and break it when he can't figure out how to work it, who kicks the backs of airline seats and throws screaming fits in the middle of stores, who steals anything he can get his hands on and lies brazenly when he gets caught...
Yes - they've been attacking her pretty much from day one, but that was just to feed the base - to keep them on a steady diet of hatred.
It's different now, and at this point, pretty much the dumbest thing the GOP could possibly do would be to try to attack Harris personally. It would appeal to the base, but they don't need to appeal to the base, since the base is voting Trump no matter what. They need to appeal to the moderates and independents, and I don't see any way personal attacks are going to do that. If they try it from a moral or legalistic stance, Harris clearly has the high ground, and will mop the floor with them. And if they try to do it in a personal level, it's guaranteed that somebody, and likely the wannabe dictator himself, will say something overtly racist and/or sexist, and that will pretty much immediately hand Harris the victory right there.
This is the key, and it really is just that simple.
Their hateful and ignorant ideals simply don't have enough support to win with any significant voter turnout.
They therefore have exactly two options - to modify their positions to appeal to more people, or to hold to their positions and try to manipulate and corrupt the system so that they can win in spite of the fact that a clear majority rightly find them to be noxious. And they've blatantly chosen the latter.
the obvious conservative-media thirst for the idea of him dropping out
I see no reason to believe that the conservatives want him to drop out, and many reasons to believe they want him to stay in.
There's absolutely no question that they're outnumbered. With a fully engaged voting public, they can't possibly win. Their only hope is to prevent as many people as possible from voting, and discourage as many more as possible.
Additionally, they've spent the last four years flogging the "Biden crime family" narrative, so all they have to do against Biden is stay the course. A new candidate would need an entirely new set of oppositional propaganda, and they wouldn't have much time in which to get it to take root.
I would think that pretty much the last thing in the world they'd want would be for the Democrats to make an 11th hour switch to an entirely different candidate, and quite possibly a candidate who will inspire the sort of enthusiasm Biden's candidacy is sorely lacking.
and hope that the DNC can come through in a clutch and come up with an alternate plan from scratch without tripping over their dicks and falling down as they are wont to often do.
Now that I agree with pretty much entirely, with only the proviso that, Hanlon's Razor notwithstanding, I tend to ascribe their failures more to malice than incompetence (though it could be argued that since it appears to boil down to stultifyingly shallow self-interest, it could qualify as just a different sort of incompetence).
Also, if you are a Democratic politician or donor and you want to replace Biden with someone else, surely talking to the press about how he should drop out without anyone in particular in mind that you’re talking to them about as a replacement, and a strategy to get that person into place, should be an absolute last, last, last resort for a way to get that done. And probably not even then.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
I think that the winning strategy, rather obviously, is to throw the nomination entirely open and let it work itself out. The exact thing that's going to inspire the sort of enthusiasm that will steamroll Trump is a very public process by which a nominee is legitimately chosen.
Coming into it with some prepared scheme by which to hopefully force the nomination of a particular candidate is just duplicating the mistakes the DNC made in 2016 and 2020, and it's all too likely to just end us up right back where we were before the debate - with a disappointed and frustrated base that has to be guilt-tripped into voting for a candidate in whom they don't believe solely on the strength of them being not-Trump.
The main problem that I see with MBFC, aside from the simple fact that it's a third party rather than ones own judgment (which is not infallible, but should still certainly be exercised, in both senses of the term) is that it appears to only measure factuality, which is just a tiny part of bias.
In spite of all of the noise about "fake news," very little news is actually fake. The vast majority of bias resides not in the nominal facts of a story, but in which stories are run and how they're reported - how those nominal facts are presented.
As an example, admittedly exaggerated for effect, compare:
with
Both relay the same basic facts, and it's likely that by MBFC's standards, both would be rated the same for that reason alone. But it's plain to see that the two are not even vaguely similar.
Again, exaggerated for effect.