4 ms·

> work with a dedicated team of editors, like politifact, to give websites an honestyrank It turns out that PolitiFact is run by people who have their own unco

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

> work with a dedicated team of editors, like politifact, to give websites an honestyrank It turns out that PolitiFact is run by people who have their own unconscious biases and put their own thumbs on the scale. So now what?

scholia 10y ago
Politifact is biased in favor of truth and honest reporting. For which reason it has won a Pulitzer Prize and many other awards for outstanding journalism. Of course, people who don't want to hear the truth -- most Trump supporters, in my experience -- will deny reality or will try to undermine it in non-truthful ways. As a matter of fact, there are several other honest fact-checking sites besides Politifact. It would be somewhat interesting if these disagreed with Politifact's judgments, but they don't.
- makomk 10y ago
  Which claims they consider worthy of examination, whether they choose to interpret the claims in a more or less favourable light, which figures they choose as their measure of things like inflation, and how important they consider any inaccuracies to the overall claim all act as thumbs on the scale. For example, I don't think they touched the claim that Trump has a secret communication channel with Russia, even though Clinton repeated it and demanded the FBI investigate it. (It was actually an entirely ordinary bulk email server sending out ads for Trump hotels.) A lot of people still seem to believe that one and think the FBI's rejection of it is proof they were conspiring to elect Trujmp.
  - scholia 10y ago
    They cover a lot, and they covered several with reference to Trump's ties to Russia. See below for some examples. Either way, it's certainly true that Trump repeatedly praised Putin, quoted Russian propaganda, disbelieved US intelligence about Russian hacking (it might have been an obese guy in a basement) and did nothing to disprove his links with Russia. This included being too scared to show his tax returns, which hasn't happened since Nixon. At least when you elected Nixon, you didn't know he was a crook. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/22/michael-morell/experts-say-donald-trumps-policies-dovetail-what-v/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/22/michael-morell/experts-say-donald-trumps-policies-dovetail-what-v/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/...
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  Do you think that sneering at people who have an issue with PolitiFact is going to win them over to your side? Gonna be a long eight years if that's the case. Putting aside sneering, though: let's assume for the sake of argument that PolitiFact really is neutral. And Google hires them to put a trustworthiness rating next to news search results. How many days pass before $YOUR_LEAST_FAVORITE_POLITICAL_FORCE realizes that PolitiFact is a single point of failure and starts scheming to influence it? Put it another way, they may be neutral today, but that's hardly a guarantee they'll be neutral tomorrow.
  - scholia 10y ago
    > they may be neutral today, but that's hardly a guarantee they'll be neutral tomorrow. Doesn't work like that. Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources. > Do you think that sneering at people who have an issue with PolitiFact is going to win them over to your side? I'm damned sure that neither facts nor rational arguments are going to win them over, because they have been conned by a pathological liar. And as I pointed out above, he's a liar who has been supported by a lying alt-right media. They live in the same sort of truth-free alternate reality as the whackjobs who believe in con-trails, think the moon landings were faked, believe Obama was born in Kenya, and don't believe in evolution. As the judge in the Trump University fraud case pointed out: "victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced".
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      > Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources. And who decides which experts get to join the consensus, and which outside sources that proffer corrections should be listened to? You're dreaming if you think that a single-point-of-failure institution like this can ever be immune to the equivalent of regulatory capture. > I'm damned sure that neither facts nor rational arguments are going to win them over, because they have been conned by a pathological liar. And as I pointed out above, he's a liar who has been supported by a lying alt-right media. Yeah, see, that's the thing. We started at "We need a neutral, unbiased source of fact-checking!" and have reached the conclusion of "Because that'll help stick it to the people I hate!" In which case, one wonders how much "neutral, unbiased" was ever in the cards in the first place.

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

scholia 10y ago

Politifact is biased in favor of truth and honest reporting. For which reason it has won a Pulitzer Prize and many other awards for outstanding journalism. Of course, people who don't want to hear the truth -- most Trump supporters, in my experience -- will deny reality or will try to undermine it in non-truthful ways. As a matter of fact, there are several other honest fact-checking sites besides Politifact. It would be somewhat interesting if these disagreed with Politifact's judgments, but they don't.

makomk 10y ago
Which claims they consider worthy of examination, whether they choose to interpret the claims in a more or less favourable light, which figures they choose as their measure of things like inflation, and how important they consider any inaccuracies to the overall claim all act as thumbs on the scale. For example, I don't think they touched the claim that Trump has a secret communication channel with Russia, even though Clinton repeated it and demanded the FBI investigate it. (It was actually an entirely ordinary bulk email server sending out ads for Trump hotels.) A lot of people still seem to believe that one and think the FBI's rejection of it is proof they were conspiring to elect Trujmp.
- scholia 10y ago
  They cover a lot, and they covered several with reference to Trump's ties to Russia. See below for some examples. Either way, it's certainly true that Trump repeatedly praised Putin, quoted Russian propaganda, disbelieved US intelligence about Russian hacking (it might have been an obese guy in a basement) and did nothing to disprove his links with Russia. This included being too scared to show his tax returns, which hasn't happened since Nixon. At least when you elected Nixon, you didn't know he was a crook. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/22/michael-morell/experts-say-donald-trumps-policies-dovetail-what-v/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/22/michael-morell/experts-say-donald-trumps-policies-dovetail-what-v/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/...
mzw_mzw 10y ago
Do you think that sneering at people who have an issue with PolitiFact is going to win them over to your side? Gonna be a long eight years if that's the case. Putting aside sneering, though: let's assume for the sake of argument that PolitiFact really is neutral. And Google hires them to put a trustworthiness rating next to news search results. How many days pass before $YOUR_LEAST_FAVORITE_POLITICAL_FORCE realizes that PolitiFact is a single point of failure and starts scheming to influence it? Put it another way, they may be neutral today, but that's hardly a guarantee they'll be neutral tomorrow.
- scholia 10y ago
  > they may be neutral today, but that's hardly a guarantee they'll be neutral tomorrow. Doesn't work like that. Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources. > Do you think that sneering at people who have an issue with PolitiFact is going to win them over to your side? I'm damned sure that neither facts nor rational arguments are going to win them over, because they have been conned by a pathological liar. And as I pointed out above, he's a liar who has been supported by a lying alt-right media. They live in the same sort of truth-free alternate reality as the whackjobs who believe in con-trails, think the moon landings were faked, believe Obama was born in Kenya, and don't believe in evolution. As the judge in the Trump University fraud case pointed out: "victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced".
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    > Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources. And who decides which experts get to join the consensus, and which outside sources that proffer corrections should be listened to? You're dreaming if you think that a single-point-of-failure institution like this can ever be immune to the equivalent of regulatory capture. > I'm damned sure that neither facts nor rational arguments are going to win them over, because they have been conned by a pathological liar. And as I pointed out above, he's a liar who has been supported by a lying alt-right media. Yeah, see, that's the thing. We started at "We need a neutral, unbiased source of fact-checking!" and have reached the conclusion of "Because that'll help stick it to the people I hate!" In which case, one wonders how much "neutral, unbiased" was ever in the cards in the first place.