4 ms·

I wrote an angry email to a Politifact intern after seeing this article: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/fellowship-minds/no-march-o

I wrote an angry email to a Politifact intern after seeing this article: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/fellowship-minds/no-march-our-lives-demonstration-was-not-prepared-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/03/... They rated this article as "pants on fire" for reporting on something that came directly from the mouth of a public official. The politifact intern actually reached out to the official in question and he personally confirmed that he gave the outlet bad information, and yet it retains the rating that insinuates intentional lying and misleading. I think it's infuriating that Google is getting away with giving these institutions an elevated voice. They do not hold an ounce of the journalistic integrity that they claim to and they make little effort to be nonpartisan. edit: The issue isn't with any particular institution, it's the general problem of any authority claiming to be an objective purveyor of truth and Google giving anyone like that an elevated voice. Even if it's not corrupt now, it's corruptible, and it serves no purpose. People need to come to decisions on their own. (edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)

dragonwriter 8y ago
And this has to do Snopes getting something wrong...how?
danso 8y ago
I don't understand your objection. The Politifact assessment of "pants on fire" is not for the public official, it's for the conspiracy websites that are peddling the public official's mistake to intentionally mislead people. Read the end of the article ("Our ruling"): > A website pushing conspiracy theories claimed that the March For Our Lives permit was actually prepared months in advance. > We contacted the police officer referred to in the story who confirmed that the story is inaccurate and the permit was actually issued 11 days prior to the march. > We rate this story Pants on Fire. The police officer said they made an honest mistake. The websites that are spreading the mistake have ostensibly ignored the correction. How is that not intentional?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  There was no correction to them, because the website never contacted the original source, they based their story on an email provided by a third party without confirming it. But, sure, reckless disregard for basic journalistic norms and fact checking because the story fit their preconceived nsrrstive seems reasonably to warrant “pants on fire”.
- nickysielicki 8y ago
  Well for starters, they haven't ignored the correction. https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/04/05/parklathe-curious-ever-changing-dates-of-march-for-our-lives-permit-application/ https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/04/05/parklathe-curiou... It's a valid question: large events like this march require considerable coordination among public services and permits are necessary to make sure that police and EMS and public transport can react, and navigating the bureaucratic machine for getting a permit is, by official D.C. guidelines, estimated to take at least 6 months. This march took place only a bit more than a month after the Parkland shooting. If people are to believe that this large march was organically organized in just a month, it must be the case that some public officials pulled strings and made exceptions for them, and that is a story in its own right. Or, on the other hand, it must be the case that this march was planned in advance of the shooting, and was thus not organized organically by student groups, but was perhaps something that was intended to happen anyway, but was repurposed in light of the shooting in Florida, which would change a purportedly grassroots event into something with much less meaning and arguably paints the true organizers as opportunists. Well, this someone sent an email in search of that question, and got a response, and this website reported on it: they heard that a permit application was received prior to the shooting. I don't see how it's their responsibility to continually check back with the officer that was consulted in order to be sure that he really meant what he said. But, as mentioned, the article contains mention of the fact that the officer has since rescinded his date, and another article is linked that pieces together the timeline. I don't see how it's fair to label them as liars. They haven't lied. They reported on a response from a public official. They've even edited the article to make mention of the rescinding of the comment. What more should they do, remove the article outright? (edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

And this has to do Snopes getting something wrong...how?

danso 8y ago

I don't understand your objection. The Politifact assessment of "pants on fire" is not for the public official, it's for the conspiracy websites that are peddling the public official's mistake to intentionally mislead people. Read the end of the article ("Our ruling"): > A website pushing conspiracy theories claimed that the March For Our Lives permit was actually prepared months in advance. > We contacted the police officer referred to in the story who confirmed that the story is inaccurate and the permit was actually issued 11 days prior to the march. > We rate this story Pants on Fire. The police officer said they made an honest mistake. The websites that are spreading the mistake have ostensibly ignored the correction. How is that not intentional?

dragonwriter 8y ago
There was no correction to them, because the website never contacted the original source, they based their story on an email provided by a third party without confirming it. But, sure, reckless disregard for basic journalistic norms and fact checking because the story fit their preconceived nsrrstive seems reasonably to warrant “pants on fire”.
nickysielicki 8y ago
Well for starters, they haven't ignored the correction. https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/04/05/parklathe-curious-ever-changing-dates-of-march-for-our-lives-permit-application/ https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/04/05/parklathe-curiou... It's a valid question: large events like this march require considerable coordination among public services and permits are necessary to make sure that police and EMS and public transport can react, and navigating the bureaucratic machine for getting a permit is, by official D.C. guidelines, estimated to take at least 6 months. This march took place only a bit more than a month after the Parkland shooting. If people are to believe that this large march was organically organized in just a month, it must be the case that some public officials pulled strings and made exceptions for them, and that is a story in its own right. Or, on the other hand, it must be the case that this march was planned in advance of the shooting, and was thus not organized organically by student groups, but was perhaps something that was intended to happen anyway, but was repurposed in light of the shooting in Florida, which would change a purportedly grassroots event into something with much less meaning and arguably paints the true organizers as opportunists. Well, this someone sent an email in search of that question, and got a response, and this website reported on it: they heard that a permit application was received prior to the shooting. I don't see how it's their responsibility to continually check back with the officer that was consulted in order to be sure that he really meant what he said. But, as mentioned, the article contains mention of the fact that the officer has since rescinded his date, and another article is linked that pieces together the timeline. I don't see how it's fair to label them as liars. They haven't lied. They reported on a response from a public official. They've even edited the article to make mention of the rescinding of the comment. What more should they do, remove the article outright? (edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]