Fact Checkers: Legitimate or Propaganda?

[West]

I remember debating this leftist probably about 6 or 7 years ago who kept referring to Politifact as sort of this authority on all that is true and all that is fake. 

One thing that I always found a bit striking is even the language they use. For example, if it's a conservative pundit or politician who maybe misses a fact on something trivial, they will often run a headline such as "partially false" as a way to discredit everything he or she said that is true. 

When it's a liberal, they can say a bunch of nonsense but put some grain of truth in what they are saying. The fact checkers will then run a headline claiming "partially true" when the majority of what's said is false. 

They also use the legacy media as a barometer of what's true or what's false. That at one point would be false, but more and more (especially with US media) the coverage is hyperpartisan depending on the station. Even Canada is the same way. 

My question is should we trust fact checkers found on Facebook or Twitter or are they in fact propaganda themselves? I don't necessarily disagree with requiring some level of fact checking especially on social media platforms, just not sure if I trust what appears to be biased "fact checkers".

[Faramir]

The are "fact" checkers as in facts according to their slant and bias.  I just don't trust so called partisan fact checker.  The fact checking done on Facebook for example is lead by 20 somethings with easily bruised egos.  In short, it's a scam.  

[West]

3 minutes ago, Faramir said:

The are "fact" checkers as in facts according to their slant and bias.  I just don't trust so called partisan fact checker.  The fact checking done on Facebook for example is lead by 20 somethings with easily bruised egos.  In short, it's a scam.  

That's sort of how I lean too. 

What's the difference between "mostly true" and "partially false" as an example? 

Seems they fact check opinions more than facts and things that aren't a left wing opinion (believe me they all think the same. I've become quite good at determining who they get their opinions from).

[Infidel Dog]

Sharyl Attkinson is a 5 time Emmy Award winning journalist who walked away from the MSM questioning its motivations and demands on honest investigative journalists like herself.

She has a great interview on partisan fact checks and fact Checkers at Rumble. You can view it here:

https://noqreport.com/2022/02/09/how-fact-checking-is-controlled-and-faked/

Here's a blurb:

"One has to understand that nearly every mode of information has been co-opted, if it can be co-opted by some group. Fact checks are no different either, they’ve been coopted in many instances or created for the purpose of distributing narratives and propaganda.

 

And your common sense is accurate when it tells you that the way they chose this fact check and how they decided to word it so they could say this thing is not true when at its heart it really is true, but the message they’re trying to send is that you shouldn’t believe it, your common sense is right.

That’s been created as part of a propaganda effort by somebody, somewhere, as part of a narrative to distribute to the public so virtually every piece of information that can be co-opted has been.”

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, West said:

just not sure if I trust what appears to be biased "fact checkers".

Well when so many facts are dangerous in and of themselves I'm not surprised people don't trust fact checkers.

That said, I think if you're willing to use them you should be just as subject to them.  OTOH refusing to use them doesn't mean they still can't or won't be used against you.

Suck it up and deal with it.

[Infidel Dog]

"Fact Checkers" as we see them today represent the last desperate grasp at credibility of a fake news MSM.

Too much and too often they're just more baffled up partisan, leftist, attack bull shit to take seriously.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Faramir]

23 hours ago, West said:

That's sort of how I lean too. 

What's the difference between "mostly true" and "partially false" as an example? 

Seems they fact check opinions more than facts and things that aren't a left wing opinion (believe me they all think the same. I've become quite good at determining who they get their opinions from).

Exactly, they assume certain leftist talking points to be fact.  Like global warming IS a fact they will say.

[Faramir]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well when so many facts are dangerous in and of themselves I'm not surprised people don't trust fact checkers.

That said, I think if you're willing to use them you should be just as subject to them.  OTOH refusing to use them doesn't mean they still can't or won't be used against you.

Suck it up and deal with it.

In any case we have to accept there is nothing wrong with being wrong.  Like people obsessively fact checking the content of opinion makers such as say Tucker Carlson and then concluding that Fox News is pushing incorrect facts.  Duh, its an opinion show.  

An example might be someone saying "Muslims hate gays", I dunno, say on Joe Rogan show. Someone is just going to turn themselves into a pretzel fact checking an OPINION like that, bringing up some quote from some Muslim scholar from 20 years ago. 

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, Faramir said:

In any case we have to accept there is nothing wrong with being wrong.

Or being corrected.

[ironstone]

I don't really trust all the self anointed fact checkers because they also engage way too much in outright censorship.

 

[eyeball]

On 3/8/2022 at 3:11 PM, ironstone said:

I don't really trust all the self anointed fact checkers because they also engage way too much in outright censorship.

Where did you hear that?

[ironstone]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Where did you hear that?

Facebook and Twitter engage in censorship. Overwhelmingly against conservatives. The two videos I posted above are good examples. It happens with stories that run against the climate change agenda. It happened with the Hunter Biden laptop story, it was censored by the media when every bit of evidence indicated it was clearly a legitimate news story. 

News is often used as a weapon either by omitting facts or pushing false narratives like the Russia collusion hoax.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Facebook and Twitter engage in censorship. Overwhelmingly against conservatives. 

That's only true if you think conspiracy theorists are conservative.

[ironstone]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's only true if you think conspiracy theorists are conservative.

I'm just going by what the actual heads of Facebook and Twitter are saying.

Facebook, Twitter CEOs struggle to name a single liberal who has been censored on their platforms | Fox News

GOP Rep: Twitter Banned At Least 60K Conservative Accounts (thepalmierireport.com)

It's not just censorship against conservatives either. Other topics are not really subject to debate, like climate change or the ever growing list of new genders.

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, ironstone said:

 

GOP Rep: Twitter Banned At Least 60K Conservative Accounts (thepalmierireport.com)

Pretty clear that this is fake news.

[ironstone]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pretty clear that this is fake news.

Any thoughts as to why conservatives are going to Rumble, Parler and Gab?

 

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pretty clear that this is fake news.

Really why? It's not even MSM. How could it be fake news?

Also, what they claim is true. They claim a GOP Rep says 60,000 conservatives had their twitter accounts banned. 

Congressman Madison Cawthorn did say that. They show him saying it on video. It's an unmitigated fact.

This appears to be one of those "Don't believe your lying eyes" things Progressive types are becoming famous for.

Conservatives - actual conservatives - have to start calling these guys out more on these or they'll think they're getting away with it.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, ironstone said:

Any thoughts as to why conservatives are going to Rumble, Parler and Gab?

 

You are confusing conservatives with conspiracy folks.

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, ironstone said:

Any thoughts as to why conservatives are going to Rumble, Parler and Gab?

 

Bubble-seeking.

[ironstone]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Bubble-seeking.

Interesting, but I think you're wrong. It's more about being allowed to voice your opinion, even when it's unpopular. Twitter, Facebook and their kind do not allow that.

Putin is allowed on Twitter. The Taliban are allowed on Twitter. Ayatollah Khamenei is allowed on Twitter. Xi Jinping is on Twitter.

Donald Trump was kicked off Twitter.

Inciting violence? How about this?

During this summer’s Black Lives Matter demonstrations, politicians, celebrities, and other users praised those taking to the streets in protest. Many also championed the associated riots, which cost livelihoods and at least 30 lives as cities burned.

 

Football player turned activist Colin Kaepernick was vocal in his support for the violent rioting that overtook many American cities. He has been both “glorifying” actual violence and encouraging it to continue. Rather than censor his account in any way, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donated $3 million to Kaepernick’s organization.

[ironstone]

Twitter’s permanent suspension of President Trump’s account is clearly not about the rules, but an exercise of power over its political opponents. Wednesday’s riots were not the cause, but the excuse used for Big Tech to do what they’ve been wanting to do for years — keep conservatives from speaking on public platforms.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

 Football player turned activist Colin Kaepernick was vocal in his support for the violent rioting that overtook many American cities. 

Ok, well we might have an example of Twitter hypocrisy.  Furnish the tweets and let's see.

[dialamah]

22 minutes ago, ironstone said:

It's more about being allowed to voice your opinion, even when it's unpopular

Conservatives voice their opinion everywhere; if they expect never to have anyone disagree with them, that's an unreasonable expectation.   If they really believe in their ideology, they should be willing to express it everywhere, not deliberately create echo-chambers.

I've tried a couple of conservative subreddits, and expressing any kind on non-conforming view gets one booted, no other ideas allowed apparently.  But these people are die-hard Trumpsters so ... 

I think I'm starting to recognize real conservatives from extremists so that helps.  If I happened on a moderate conservative forum, I think I'd enjoy it and probably appreciate conservative views more.  

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

1. I've tried a couple of conservative subreddits, and expressing any kind on non-conforming view gets one booted, no other ideas allowed apparently.  But these people are die-hard Trumpsters so ... 

2. I think I'm starting to recognize real conservatives from extremists so that helps.  If I happened on a moderate conservative forum, I think I'd enjoy it and probably appreciate conservative views more.  

1. Yes I have been booted from Whacktard Trump groups for asking questions about WTF they mean by 'cancel culture' or 'stolen election'  Deliciously ironic.
2. These are not conservatives they conspiratives they.  Ignore 'em unless you are bored. 

That said, I do NOT like the idea of a corporation owning dialogue between individuals.  There needs to be a public model, which allows for freedom of speech as long as it is legal IMO.  But it should be nonymous, not Anonymous.  
 

[ironstone]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well we might have an example of Twitter hypocrisy.  Furnish the tweets and let's see.

Fuzzy Memories: When Kaepernick Called for Violence and Jack Dorsey Gave Him $3M - 93.1FM WIBC