No joke. My point being that SourceWatch takes a collaborative, wiki-based approach to looking at sources (of varying stripes), their bias and associations. As an approach, it's a reasonable start.

If you've got any specific beefs with SourceWatch based on the information presented, state them.

What I find most useful about SW is in tracking associations and relationships between sources and groups / organizations / funders. Not proof positive but often enough to confirm hunches and suspicions.

There are a number of other media watchdogs:

FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: http://fair.org/ Produces Counterspin radio program: http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/

Sunlight Foundation (associated with Sourcewatch / CMD)

ThinkProgress: liberal political blog (given to outrage posts) http://thinkprogress.org/

On the Media is a weekly program produced by WNYC covering media generally, including both intentional and systemic bias (e.g., see their "consumers' guide to breaking news" guides). http://onthemedia.org/

Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog.

Also Media Research center (conservative)

RationalWiki isn't specifically a media watchdog but tends to debunk flawed logic (on both the right and left). It itself was a response to Conservopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

RW's SW page gives a reasonable assessment of SW's strengths and weaknesses: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SourceWatch

Contrast AIM: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media

Finally: reality has a well-known liberal bias, as a wise man once counseled a former appointed President of the United States.