Fact Checkers Are There To Confuse The Public

[Rightguide]

Educated people already understand the function of 20 something "fact checkers" employed by big Tech and the media. They are there to propagandize against uncomfortable truths. Who would know better than a real American journalist who worked in the big media::


Fact-Checkers Are Used to Confuse the Public: Sharyl Attkisson
By Masooma Haq and Jan Jekielek January 23, 2022 Updated: January 23, 2022

Five-time Emmy award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson said she has seen an increased effort to manipulate the public to appreciate censorship and disapprove of journalism. One of the strategies that has been employed is the use of third-party fact-checkers, she said.

“Nearly every mode of information has been co-opted, if it can be co-opted by some group, [and] fact-checkers are no different,” Attkisson told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders.”

“Either they’ve been co-opted, in many instances, or created for the purpose of distributing narratives and propaganda,” said Attkisson. “This is all part of a very well-funded, well-organized landscape that dictates and slants the information they want us to have.”

Attkisson said she first started to notice news being controlled in the early 2000s when the media company she was working for was actively trying to suppress certain stories.

“The pushback came to be more about keeping a story from airing or keeping a study from being reported on the news, not just giving the other side, not just making sure it was accurately reported,” she said of pharmaceutical company stories she was covering at the time.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fact-...utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

 

[pecksniff]

PolitiFact has, and deserves, a lot more credibility than the Epoch Times.

 

[GeorgeSoros]

Keep your Falun Gong propaganda to yourself, vetteman.

 

[ll74]

holy fuck the gaslighting is so much

 

[LittleDixie]

Fact checkers are thought control.

If you could point to a fact checking organization that was strictly literal, did not re-interpret things for a political agenda and never made mistakes, then that could be a useful service. Problem is that fact checkers are often motivated to enforce the boundaries of a narrative.

 

[Rightguide]

PolitiFact has, and deserves, a lot more credibility than the Epoch Times.

Its true name is Politifarce. It is exactly as Sharyl characterizes it, a propaganda outfit.

 

[pecksniff]

If you could point to a fact checking organization that was strictly literal, did not re-interpret things for a political agenda and never made mistakes, then that could be a useful service.

That's PolitiFact. It has no partisan agenda and very rarely makes mistakes.

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website set up by the Florida newspaper Tampa Bay Times. The site was the 2009 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.[1] It attempts to document and verify claims made by prominent public figures, but has frequently been accused of muddled thinking[2] and the balance fallacy.[3] In 2018 ownership passed to the Poynter Institute, a non-profit journalism school that was founded by an endowment from publisher Nelson Poynter and that also owns the Tampa Bay Times; PolitiFact is funded by online advertising, grants, and commercial partnerships.[4]

In addition to applying a "Truth-O-Meter" to thousands of statements, ranking them from "true" to "pants on fire," the site maintains a "GOP Pledge-O-Meter",[5], an "Obameter",[6] and now a "Trump-O-Meter".[7] It is essentially an American version of FactsCan.Wikipedia

Rachel Maddow does not like them.[8][9][10][11][12]

Being debunked sucks!

Like all skeptical fact checking sites, PolitiFact is not very popular with those who deal in falsehoods. For example, conservative publication Human Events claims that the fact that conservatives are about three times more likely to lie than liberals is clear evidence of bias, not of conservative deceit.[13]

Also, Jon Cassidy stated that PolitiFact is more critical of conservative statements, and it even labels true statements made by conservatives as false.

One example given was how PolitiFact fact-checked a statement made by Gerard Robinson, a Republican schools commissioner from Florida. He stated annual standardized tests "account for less than 1 percent of the instructional time provided during the year."[14] The actual percentage of class time spent on standardized tests annually is between 0.26 percent and 0.90 percent. PolitiFact found Robinson's statement false, however, on the grounds that his figure only covered the time spent taking the actual test, and not the amount of time spent by teachers on test preparation.[15][16]

Mediabiasfactcheck.com lists PolitiFact as a least-biased media source and gives it a "Very High" rating in factual reporting.[17]

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/2/2b/politifact.png

 

[WillJ8787]

PolitiFact has, and deserves, a lot more credibility than the Epoch Times.

Dopey folks don't like facts first....chuckles, they don't quite understand what facts are.

Dopey folks don't like fact checkers.... those folks who point out how dopey folks are wrong or mislead.

It's hard to be dopey...so many facts so little time.

 

[jomar]

LOL, the epoch times. They're practically at the head of the list for spewing false "facts."

 

[Rightguide]

That's PolitiFact. It has no partisan agenda and very rarely makes mistakes.

Is fawning, groveling, brownnoser, redundant? Just wonderin'.

 

[Rightguide]

LOL, the epoch times. They're practically at the head of the list for spewing false "facts."

So, what facts in the article have you proven to be less than factual?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sharyl Attkisson?
Whar has I heard that name before?

Oh yeah, over on Snopes.

Sharyl Attkisson is one of the foremost media mouthpieces promoting the "Vaccines Cause Autism" propaganda blitz.

This tells me all I need to know about her integrity.

Conversely, we can all see why Rightguide idolizes her.

 

[Rightguide]

Sharyl Attkisson?
Whar has I heard that name before?

Oh yeah, over on Snopes.

Sharyl Attkisson is one of the foremost media mouthpieces promoting the "Vaccines Cause Autism" propaganda blitz.

This tells me all I need to know about her integrity.

Conversely, we can all see why Rightguide idolizes her.

She was one of the top reporters for CBS News that Obama had wiretapped along with James Rosen in an attack on negative press reports.

 

[pecksniff]

She was one of the top reporters for CBS News that Obama had wiretapped along with James Rosen in an attack on negative press reports.

That would add nothing to her credibility.

 

[Rightguide]

That would add nothing to her credibility.

She needs nothing added. Her integrity is intact.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

She needs nothing added. Her integrity is intact.

You're talking to a guy who cites Eric Alterman as an authority.

 

[Rightguide]

Sharyl Attkisson?
Whar has I heard that name before?

Oh yeah, over on Snopes.

Sharyl Attkisson is one of the foremost media mouthpieces promoting the "Vaccines Cause Autism" propaganda blitz.

This tells me all I need to know about her integrity.

Conversely, we can all see why Rightguide idolizes her.

Snopes? Ahahaha...founded by two longhaired fraudsters from CA.

Co-Founder of Fact-Checking Site Snopes Busted for Writing Plagiarized Articles, Using Fake Name

Fact-check the founder of the internet’s most well-known fact-checking website and what do you find? Plagiarism under a pseudonym, for one thing.

An investigation published by BuzzFeed News on Friday revealed that David Mikkelson, controversial co-founder of Snopes, wrote and published dozens of articles on the site over four years that used material plagiarized from establishment news outlets. Some of them were written under the pseudonym “Jeff Zarronandia.”

And while Snopes’ website says it “follows all industry guidelines for transparency in reporting” and that “we think being transparent with readers is the coolest,” nowhere did it disclose that Zarronandia was actually Mikkelson.

Granted, readers probably could have guessed something was a bit different about Zarronandia from his bio, which said the name was a “pseudonym of J. Eff Zarronandia” and claimed he had won the “Pulitzer Prize for numismatics in 2006” and the “Distinguished Conflagration Award of the American Society of Muleskinners for 2005.”

This is the kind of absurdist joke that would have been considered funny in the early days of the internet, when Netscape Navigator was the browser of choice and social media consisted of IRC and Usenet.
https://www.westernjournal.com/co-f...writing-plagiarized-articles-using-fake-name/

And there is this:

https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-s...ading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/

 

[pecksniff]

She needs nothing added. Her integrity is intact.

Not if she's an anti-vaxxer, it ain't.

 

[pecksniff]

You're talking to a guy who cites Eric Alterman as an authority.

This one? Why not? Worst thing you can say about him is he's pro-Israel.

 

[Lazaran]

.
This thread topic:

The author of this thread:

Pud:

JFC:

SAD!!!:

 

[ll74]

The thing about fact checkers is that the good ones provide sources for their statements, that you can visit and check out for yourself.

And the problem with fact checkers is that morons are lazy and rely on analysis for cut-paste rather than actually looking at what they are referring to, or doing any check for themselves. If the study says one thing and the analysis says another, then it's likely to not rely on the analysis.

For example: any medical "fact check" which relies upon studies, should have those studies listed and/or analysis which contains those studies listed.

If the last link in your chain is more analysis, then it's best to skip that.

 

[jomar]

So, what facts in the article have you proven to be less than factual?

Well, it's an opinion piece, so...

 

[Lazaran]

Well, it's an opinion piece, so...

Did you fact check that ^ claim???

*chuckles*

 

[jomar]

Did you fact check that ^ claim???

*chuckles*

You mean on Snopes?

 

[Lazaran]

You mean on Snopes?

Politifact of course.

*nods* AND *chuckles*