If you want to judge your media consumption off of some guy with no pictures online, no public interviews, and a "strong grasp of the scientific process" gained through (supposedly) a physiology degree and half a communications degree, be my guest. Just don't launder it's reliability here.

[–] coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

… ok.

https://adfontesmedia.com/south-china-morning-post-bias-and-reliability/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post

Some old Reddit discussion. https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/a5rh5p/is_south_china_morning_post_still_legit/

Please take this with you.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Ad Fontes reports SCMP's reliability as 41.56, which is higher than the Washington Post (39.42) and on par with the New York Times (42.00), Al Jazeera (41.55), and USA Today (41.27). Ad Fontes ranks it lower than institutions like the BBC (44.72) or NPR (43.49) as well as newswire services like Reuters (45.62), AFP (47.15), and Associated Press (45.64).

Your other references are Wikipedia and Reddit. Are you sure you don't want to cite what Google Gemini says as well?

Edit: for reference, Ad Fontes puts FOX News at a 35.49, MSNBC at a 34.39, and the New York Post at a 32.98.