4 ms·

‘Impartial’ fact-checkers are revealing their partisanship against Trump https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-revealing-their-partisanship-

‘Impartial’ fact-checkers are revealing their partisanship against Trump https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-revealing-their-partisanship-against-trump/ https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-re...

Semaphor 6y ago
Can someone explain to me why this is downvoted? The examples seem to support OPs point and seem pretty damning to me.
- valvar 6y ago
  A lot of people flag according to their own political position, not the quality or validity of the content.
- Svip 6y ago
  The first example makes me question the rest of their examples. I find it noticeable that they are reluctant to link to the fact checking they are referencing. The first mentions Politico contending that "one in third" is only 'partly true'. Yet the closest I can find to Politico fact checking that line,[0] is merely a reference to the Doctors Without Borders report, without any mention of how true it is (besides, Politico doesn't really do fact checking either, nor claim to be impartial). Edit: Looks like it happened on Twitter (see reply), so I stand corrected. That being said, I am confident there are biases in fact checking, all humans are subjective. And even if every fact check a site did was impartial, their choice in which things they choose to fact check would surely be not, or at least be open for questioning. What makes one statement more worthy of a fact check than another? [0] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-the-union-2019-live-fact-check-transcript-2/5/19/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-th... and search for "one in three"
  - Udik 6y ago
    > Yet the closest I can find to Politico fact checking that line,[0] is merely a reference to the Doctors Without Borders report https://twitter.com/politico/status/1093001428900237312?lang=en https://twitter.com/politico/status/1093001428900237312?lang...
- EasyTiger_ 6y ago
  This is happening increasingly on HN as election nears.
- s9w 6y ago
  Democrat talking points up, anything else down

Semaphor 6y ago

Can someone explain to me why this is downvoted? The examples seem to support OPs point and seem pretty damning to me.

valvar 6y ago
A lot of people flag according to their own political position, not the quality or validity of the content.
Svip 6y ago
The first example makes me question the rest of their examples. I find it noticeable that they are reluctant to link to the fact checking they are referencing. The first mentions Politico contending that "one in third" is only 'partly true'. Yet the closest I can find to Politico fact checking that line,[0] is merely a reference to the Doctors Without Borders report, without any mention of how true it is (besides, Politico doesn't really do fact checking either, nor claim to be impartial). Edit: Looks like it happened on Twitter (see reply), so I stand corrected. That being said, I am confident there are biases in fact checking, all humans are subjective. And even if every fact check a site did was impartial, their choice in which things they choose to fact check would surely be not, or at least be open for questioning. What makes one statement more worthy of a fact check than another? [0] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-the-union-2019-live-fact-check-transcript-2/5/19/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-th... and search for "one in three"
- Udik 6y ago
  > Yet the closest I can find to Politico fact checking that line,[0] is merely a reference to the Doctors Without Borders report https://twitter.com/politico/status/1093001428900237312?lang=en https://twitter.com/politico/status/1093001428900237312?lang...
EasyTiger_ 6y ago
This is happening increasingly on HN as election nears.
s9w 6y ago
Democrat talking points up, anything else down