4 ms·
> No amount of branding will convince me that "fact checkers" are any more objective and impartial than regular newspaper columnists; fact checkers are what edi
by vosper 5y ago
> No amount of branding will convince me that "fact checkers" are any more objective and impartial than regular newspaper columnists; fact checkers are what editors are supposed to be. There's no academic rigor to fact checking
Matt Taibbi recently published an article about how the role and visibility of fact-checking has changed over recent years (the meat of this is in the second half of the article)
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/fact-checking-takes-another-beating https://taibbi.substack.com/p/fact-checking-takes-another-be...
- hermitdev 5y agoThis was an interesting read, but I think there's something missed with fact-checkers. They seem to be caught in a strict binary of true and false when there's often a third possibility: we do not have the necessary information to either prove or disprove a claim/statement.
- lhnz 5y agoThe other issue is that they fail to categorise their "opponents" arguments into strong and weak claims. So you often end up with articles arguing against strawmen, where the strawmen is considered to be the only view held by the other side. This isn't really useful.
- PedroBatista 5y agoThere are alternatives ( at least around the World ), that include a limited range of conclusions from "true", "imprecise", "out of context", "manipulated" to "false".