3 ms·
When you start to look at how the fact checkers operate you'll see the same things over and over again, starting with leading questions, selective targeting of
by sparkzilla 11y ago
When you start to look at how the fact checkers operate you'll see the same things over and over again, starting with leading questions, selective targeting of opponents, the use of selective data, selective interpretation of the data, ambiguous metrics (what does "half true" mean?) and in many cases wilful distortion of the conclusion that does not fit the agenda. Here's a couple of examples, the first being biased, and the second "Lie of the Year" being totally incorrect. There are literally hundreds of examples similar to these.
http://newslines.org/fact-checks/did-barack-obama-vote-to-deny-rights-to-infant-abortion-survivors/ http://newslines.org/fact-checks/did-barack-obama-vote-to-de...
http://newslines.org/fact-checks/is-jeep-moving-u-s-production-to-china/ http://newslines.org/fact-checks/is-jeep-moving-u-s-producti...
- aaronkrolik 11y agoI'll just point out that your examples are not from politifact. I've never heard of newslines.org, but i'd trust their no-bylined factchecks about as much as I would trust a fact check from a random facebook commenter. I'm not defending every shitty news site out there pretending to do 'journalism', I'm defending Politifact's work.
- sparkzilla 11y agoSorry, I didn't explain but those were my analysis of those particular Politifact fact checks. You can verify the facts yourself. In both cases Politifact is clearly biased, and misleading. BTW, I also did fact checks on the fact checks about Romney too. In any case it seems you have drunk the kool-aid so I'll leave the discuss here.