5 ms·

The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth. They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to lean

The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth. They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to lean left. Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as prevalently as the original fake news. This is a difficult area, and the stakes are so high that the arms race will doubtless continue. Because the stakes are so high, you are competing with organizations from allied countries as well as non-allied countries, and from multinational corporations and industry groups, all throwing tens of millions of dollars each on think-tanks and lobbying groups, whose main activities are to publish source material that can be used as supporting "facts" for various news stories.

panarky 8y ago
> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > > do tend to lean left > Citation needed. I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased". I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to whatever kind of site this is. http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi... I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    Daily Caller is a news/opinion blog owned by Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson. In my experience they tend to be biased against truth as it were (and so would happily choose Snopes as a target)— but that’s just the humble opinion of one observer.
    - dionian 8y ago
      everyone's biased, the key is being able to separate fact from opinion, whether a producer or consumer of an argument The same is true when it comes to source versus fact. A broken watch is still right twice a day
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority > biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree) That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'. In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie, fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy. That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and saying it's impossible.
    - JadeNB 8y ago
      > That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'. Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".
- gitgacutils 8y ago
  > Citation needed. So you want a link snope or politifact link? Even if people provided citations, wouldn't you reject them because it isn't snopes or politifact ( the approved "fact" finders )? The fact that much of the liberal media and institutions have rallied around snopes should indicate that snopes has a left bias. The fact that you ( likely a left leaning individual working in the media ) support it probably indicates it as well. > And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share. Everyone is biased. Especially when politics, money and propaganda is involved. The issue with news media isn't facts. It's the spin on the facts. Look at Trump backing out of the NK meeting last week - which is a fact. But look at how CNN and Foxnews spun that. CNN : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he is a bumbling fool failing at NK negotiations" Foxnews : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he a deal making genius who won't let NK screw over the US again." Same "fact", but wildly different spin. Fact checking is never going to solve this issue because "facts" are only a small part of the news industry. The core of the news industry is to push propaganda and to influence the people to think a certain way. Also, propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. Every country needs propaganda to exist. If you are interested, here is a former TIME magazine editor speaking on the topic of propaganda, history and news. https://youtu.be/wu64HP-PL40?t=4525 https://youtu.be/wu64HP-PL40?t=4525
- txsh 8y ago
  > Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. Citation needed.
jacquesm 8y ago
There's a huge difference between institutions that have made mistakes and those that spread lies with abandon, there is no equivalency between the two.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Can you specify a bureaucratic regime for distinguishing the two that you'd trust an opposition government to operate? If not, they are equivalent for public policy purposes. To Trump supporters, The New York Times is an institution that spreads lies with abandon, and they get to operate enforcement agencies at the moment. The belief that it's seeking the truth in good faith is essentially just liberalism. Same for Fox and friends.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    The best line of defense against this nonsense is education, free and of a very high quality. Absent that people will be pretty easy to manipulate. So whenever you're faced with a problem like this I would argue for better education rather than for some kind of control over the media, the liars should die out because nobody believes them anymore. Given how incredibly entrenched some power structures based on lies are it looks as if my plan is mostly failing. Education budgets are being cut left right and center and the quality of education has been steadily trending down since ~1950 or so.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Education is locally controlled and political polarization is geographical. Right and left wing communities could both operate stellar schools and their graduates could be even less able to agree on truth.

panarky 8y ago

> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

JadeNB 8y ago
> > do tend to lean left > Citation needed. I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased". I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to whatever kind of site this is. http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi... I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Daily Caller is a news/opinion blog owned by Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson. In my experience they tend to be biased against truth as it were (and so would happily choose Snopes as a target)— but that’s just the humble opinion of one observer.
  - dionian 8y ago
    everyone's biased, the key is being able to separate fact from opinion, whether a producer or consumer of an argument The same is true when it comes to source versus fact. A broken watch is still right twice a day
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority > biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree) That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'. In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie, fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy. That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and saying it's impossible.
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'. Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".
gitgacutils 8y ago
> Citation needed. So you want a link snope or politifact link? Even if people provided citations, wouldn't you reject them because it isn't snopes or politifact ( the approved "fact" finders )? The fact that much of the liberal media and institutions have rallied around snopes should indicate that snopes has a left bias. The fact that you ( likely a left leaning individual working in the media ) support it probably indicates it as well. > And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share. Everyone is biased. Especially when politics, money and propaganda is involved. The issue with news media isn't facts. It's the spin on the facts. Look at Trump backing out of the NK meeting last week - which is a fact. But look at how CNN and Foxnews spun that. CNN : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he is a bumbling fool failing at NK negotiations" Foxnews : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he a deal making genius who won't let NK screw over the US again." Same "fact", but wildly different spin. Fact checking is never going to solve this issue because "facts" are only a small part of the news industry. The core of the news industry is to push propaganda and to influence the people to think a certain way. Also, propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. Every country needs propaganda to exist. If you are interested, here is a former TIME magazine editor speaking on the topic of propaganda, history and news. https://youtu.be/wu64HP-PL40?t=4525 https://youtu.be/wu64HP-PL40?t=4525
txsh 8y ago
> Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. Citation needed.

jacquesm 8y ago

There's a huge difference between institutions that have made mistakes and those that spread lies with abandon, there is no equivalency between the two.

closeparen 8y ago
Can you specify a bureaucratic regime for distinguishing the two that you'd trust an opposition government to operate? If not, they are equivalent for public policy purposes. To Trump supporters, The New York Times is an institution that spreads lies with abandon, and they get to operate enforcement agencies at the moment. The belief that it's seeking the truth in good faith is essentially just liberalism. Same for Fox and friends.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  The best line of defense against this nonsense is education, free and of a very high quality. Absent that people will be pretty easy to manipulate. So whenever you're faced with a problem like this I would argue for better education rather than for some kind of control over the media, the liars should die out because nobody believes them anymore. Given how incredibly entrenched some power structures based on lies are it looks as if my plan is mostly failing. Education budgets are being cut left right and center and the quality of education has been steadily trending down since ~1950 or so.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Education is locally controlled and political polarization is geographical. Right and left wing communities could both operate stellar schools and their graduates could be even less able to agree on truth.