4 ms·
Calling it a fact check (even implicitly) causes people with poor critical reading skills - to wit, almost everyone - to interpret the expert opinion as being u
by ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Calling it a fact check (even implicitly) causes people with poor critical reading skills - to wit, almost everyone - to interpret the expert opinion as being undoubtedly true. This is a big part of the widening divide between right and left, which is a major issue.
- markdown 5y ago> Calling it a fact check (even implicitly) causes people with poor critical reading skills - to wit, almost everyone - to interpret the expert opinion as being undoubtedly true. In my experience, people with poor critical reading skills don't read. Instead they just regurgitate what they heard on FOX, which is that fact check websites are a liberal scam.
- timr 5y ago> In my experience, people with poor critical reading skills don't read. Instead they just regurgitate what they heard on FOX The same thing happens on the left with the New York Times. Laziness is a trait orthogonal to political party.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jquery 5y agoFalse equivalence. Fox went to court to call themselves entertainment because of all the verifiable lies they were pushing. In court, Tucker Carlson said “no reasonable person” would believe him. New York Times standards are much higher than Fox. Are they perfect? No. But generally they are far less likely to lie to you.
- jessaustin 5y agoYou're trolling us, right? Maddow won a nearly identical court case using a nearly identical defense. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
- teh64 5y agoWhen did Rachel Maddow switch to being part of the New York Times? Or is it all just "liberal" media?
- jessaustin 5y agoI complain about all USA corporate media, perhaps more accurately described as "war media". I don't recognize a difference between "conservative" and "liberal" flavors, since they are about as distinct as Coke and Pepsi. It isn't a surprise that both Carlson and Maddow use these techniques, since they both learned from Roger Ailes. NYT like to pretend they are somehow above these clowns, but they too have lied us into our every war. The idea is that fools will pay lots of attention to the spectacle of false disagreement and ignore the actual policies of every politician in the employ of billionaires.
- barbacoa 5y agoThe NYT is using a near identical defense in an ongoing libel lawsuit from James O'Keefe.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Calling it a fact check (even implicitly) causes people with poor critical reading skills - to wit, almost everyone - to interpret the expert opinion as being undoubtedly true. People with poor critical reading skills will probably just accept (or, if it conflicts with the preexisting world view, reject) the original claim as true without referencing a “fact check” at all.
- cout 5y agoThat likely depends heavily on which one they read first.