8 ms·

The reason "fact-checked" seems political is because there is a movement among the American right to discredit any job that involves seeking or explaining the t

by drewrv 4y ago

The reason "fact-checked" seems political is because there is a movement among the American right to discredit any job that involves seeking or explaining the truth. I may come across as hyperbolic but I'm serious: name a job where you try to sort out what's true and what isn't, and American right-wing trolls will accuse it of bias. Scientist? Journalist? Professor? Librarian? Doctor? It was only a matter of time before "fact-checker" got the same treatment as these other people. None of these people or careers are beyond reproach, but there is a difference between good-faith attempts at finding the truth and bad-faith accusations of bias.

vintermann 4y ago
I've been a supporter of Wikileaks for many years, and I think that the idea that attacking journalists for publishing evidence is a uniquely Republican thing is disproved by what I've seen. Most of which you won't have seen, of course. One of the fact checkers given a prominent position on the front page of Google News is polygraph.info. Polygraph.info is run by Voice of America, official propaganda organ of the US, which was until a few years forbidden by law from targeting US citizens. Now I ask you: do you think it was for reasons of popular pressure, or maybe market forces, that Voice of America became a featured fact-checker for Google News? Also, do you think I could get them to fact check claims like, "The CIA considered concrete plans to assassinate Julian Assange"? You think that would ever happen, that they honestly promoted a little known fact which was deeply embarrassing to the US government? I find no good faith there. Maybe they have the luxury of less actual lying, because as a hegemonic propagandists, they can just stonewall when someone asks them an awkward question. Pretend they didn't hear it, because no one will report it. Underdog propagandists like RT don't have that luxury, so it's more efficient to conjure up a shitstorm of mutually incompatible lies for them. But their role is the same.
raffraffraff 4y ago
The American right don't have the monopoly on discrediting facts or fact checkers. The left are absolutely up to their necks in it too, both in America and abroad.
brailsafe 4y ago
Seems like a both sides sort of thing to me, especially with Twitter stuff coming out
tenpies 4y ago
Sure, I'll take you on one of the crown jewels that "the Right-wing Trolls" use to discredit Fact Checkers. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phone-hammer/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon... Read it. The point of the claim is that Hillary Clinton had her phones destroyed. This is true, but the Fact Checkers cannot allow this to be true, so what is an honest Democrat-leaning Fact Checker to do? Easy, you muddy the claim and add to it: the Right-wing Trolls aren't claiming Hillary had her phones destroyed. No, I've decided that they're claiming that she personally destroyed them with a hammer! AHA! Got you Right-wring Trolls! That's definitely not entirely true. Verdict: MIXTURE. Clinton did not personally, with her own hands, use a hammer to destroy phones. So you see, this is what Fact Checking is. When the truth needs to be denied, you muddy the waters, you add irrelevant details to the claim that no one really cares about, and then use those details to claim that the original statement is not true. And look, the issue isn't that this is being done, it's that it's being presented as fact checking, which is why I distinguish between fact checking and Fact Checking.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Did you actually read the article you posted in question? Because it does accurately lay out the facts, disputes the claim Trump made specifically and does not exonerate her. It sounds like you're letting your world view warp what the article actually says.
- dtjb 4y ago
  That snopes article is much more reasonable than you're making it out to be.
- __blockcipher__ 4y ago
  Here’s another example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." It should go without saying that there’s no single, universally agreed upon definition of anything, thus giving a convenient way to dismiss any inconvenient claims.
hervature 4y ago
I don't get it, are you insinuating that "the American right" don't like scientists, journalists, professors, librarians, and doctors? You may want to evaluate your echo chamber if you believe this personification of 150M people. I say that as a Canadian living in the US and is perpetually confused by what each side says about the other.
- danielheath 4y ago
  Exactly as stated, verbatim: there is a movement within it. That’s not the same as describing them as a monolithic group who all act that way.
- drewrv 4y ago
  Journalists: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/media/trump-media-enemy-of-the-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/media/trump-medi... Scientists: https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2023/01/23/woke-lancet-announces-medical-urgency-of-climate-change/ https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2023/01/23/woke-lancet... Professors: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/just-how-liberal-are-college-professors/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/just-how-liberal-are-c... Librarians: https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/librarians-go-radical-as-new-woke-policies-take-over-experts/ https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/librarians-go-radical-as-new-w... Doctors: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boston-childrens-hospital-faces-bomb-threat-right-wing-harassment-camp-rcna45620 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boston-childrens-hospit... > are you insinuating that "the American right" don't like scientists, journalists, professors, librarians, and doctors? I actually don't think this. I know conservatives, they will generally believe scientists who are studying black holes but when climate change gets brought up they accuse them of bias. Similarly they will seek out doctors for their condition but when a doctor treats a trans patient they will accuse them of bias. It's not a dislike, and not of individuals, it's more of a distrust of institutions.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    You're generalizing the loudest of the fringe to those 140M people followed by generalizing personal anecdotes to the same 140M. This is the same as trying to say that all Democrats support antifa.
splistud 4y ago
A perfect demonstration of bias in action

by drewrv 4y ago

vintermann 4y ago

I've been a supporter of Wikileaks for many years, and I think that the idea that attacking journalists for publishing evidence is a uniquely Republican thing is disproved by what I've seen. Most of which you won't have seen, of course. One of the fact checkers given a prominent position on the front page of Google News is polygraph.info. Polygraph.info is run by Voice of America, official propaganda organ of the US, which was until a few years forbidden by law from targeting US citizens. Now I ask you: do you think it was for reasons of popular pressure, or maybe market forces, that Voice of America became a featured fact-checker for Google News? Also, do you think I could get them to fact check claims like, "The CIA considered concrete plans to assassinate Julian Assange"? You think that would ever happen, that they honestly promoted a little known fact which was deeply embarrassing to the US government? I find no good faith there. Maybe they have the luxury of less actual lying, because as a hegemonic propagandists, they can just stonewall when someone asks them an awkward question. Pretend they didn't hear it, because no one will report it. Underdog propagandists like RT don't have that luxury, so it's more efficient to conjure up a shitstorm of mutually incompatible lies for them. But their role is the same.

raffraffraff 4y ago

The American right don't have the monopoly on discrediting facts or fact checkers. The left are absolutely up to their necks in it too, both in America and abroad.

brailsafe 4y ago

Seems like a both sides sort of thing to me, especially with Twitter stuff coming out

tenpies 4y ago

Sure, I'll take you on one of the crown jewels that "the Right-wing Trolls" use to discredit Fact Checkers. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phone-hammer/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon... Read it. The point of the claim is that Hillary Clinton had her phones destroyed. This is true, but the Fact Checkers cannot allow this to be true, so what is an honest Democrat-leaning Fact Checker to do? Easy, you muddy the claim and add to it: the Right-wing Trolls aren't claiming Hillary had her phones destroyed. No, I've decided that they're claiming that she personally destroyed them with a hammer! AHA! Got you Right-wring Trolls! That's definitely not entirely true. Verdict: MIXTURE. Clinton did not personally, with her own hands, use a hammer to destroy phones. So you see, this is what Fact Checking is. When the truth needs to be denied, you muddy the waters, you add irrelevant details to the claim that no one really cares about, and then use those details to claim that the original statement is not true. And look, the issue isn't that this is being done, it's that it's being presented as fact checking, which is why I distinguish between fact checking and Fact Checking.

fzeroracer 4y ago
Did you actually read the article you posted in question? Because it does accurately lay out the facts, disputes the claim Trump made specifically and does not exonerate her. It sounds like you're letting your world view warp what the article actually says.
dtjb 4y ago
That snopes article is much more reasonable than you're making it out to be.
__blockcipher__ 4y ago
Here’s another example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." It should go without saying that there’s no single, universally agreed upon definition of anything, thus giving a convenient way to dismiss any inconvenient claims.

hervature 4y ago

I don't get it, are you insinuating that "the American right" don't like scientists, journalists, professors, librarians, and doctors? You may want to evaluate your echo chamber if you believe this personification of 150M people. I say that as a Canadian living in the US and is perpetually confused by what each side says about the other.

danielheath 4y ago
Exactly as stated, verbatim: there is a movement within it. That’s not the same as describing them as a monolithic group who all act that way.
drewrv 4y ago
Journalists: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/media/trump-media-enemy-of-the-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/media/trump-medi... Scientists: https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2023/01/23/woke-lancet-announces-medical-urgency-of-climate-change/ https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2023/01/23/woke-lancet... Professors: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/just-how-liberal-are-college-professors/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/just-how-liberal-are-c... Librarians: https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/librarians-go-radical-as-new-woke-policies-take-over-experts/ https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/librarians-go-radical-as-new-w... Doctors: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boston-childrens-hospital-faces-bomb-threat-right-wing-harassment-camp-rcna45620 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boston-childrens-hospit... > are you insinuating that "the American right" don't like scientists, journalists, professors, librarians, and doctors? I actually don't think this. I know conservatives, they will generally believe scientists who are studying black holes but when climate change gets brought up they accuse them of bias. Similarly they will seek out doctors for their condition but when a doctor treats a trans patient they will accuse them of bias. It's not a dislike, and not of individuals, it's more of a distrust of institutions.
- mlindner 4y ago
  You're generalizing the loudest of the fringe to those 140M people followed by generalizing personal anecdotes to the same 140M. This is the same as trying to say that all Democrats support antifa.

splistud 4y ago

A perfect demonstration of bias in action