Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is fact checking the fact checkers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who is fact checking the fact checkers?

    "
    Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things."


    According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is:
    • Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
    • Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
    • A thing that has been done, especially a crime.



    The question opening this thread is posed because PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," have just signed a deal with NBC. PolitiFact and NBC News wouldn’t disclose what the deal is worth financially. The deal shows fact-checking is a service that can now be bought. Rather than fact-checking internally, news organizations will simply turn to specialized fact-checkers.

    Together, PolitiFact and NBC will fact-check the 2016 election.

    PolitiFact will be fact-checking politicians and journalists on “Meet the Press,” either by preparing the content for the host, Chuck Todd, or presenting the fact checks directly on air. The Florida-based organization will also work with NBC reporters across the country to produce exclusive fact checks relevant to the particular moment in the news cycle.
    CNN is also connected to a political fact-checker, Factcheck.org.
    “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Nikki View Post
    "
    Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things."


    According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is:
    • Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
    • Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
    • A thing that has been done, especially a crime.



    The question opening this thread is posed because PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," have just signed a deal with NBC. PolitiFact and NBC News wouldn’t disclose what the deal is worth financially. The deal shows fact-checking is a service that can now be bought. Rather than fact-checking internally, news organizations will simply turn to specialized fact-checkers.

    Together, PolitiFact and NBC will fact-check the 2016 election.



    CNN is also connected to a political fact-checker, Factcheck.org.
    Who is fact checking the fact checkers?

    Anyone interested in being informed on the issues doesn’t need a fact.checker. Unfortunately, most of the electorate is either uninterested in the issues or too lazy to become informed.

    The purpose of these Internet "fact checkers" is to provide CNN, NBC, etc. with an "unbiased" source to back up whatever lies the Democrats spew and the media parrots.
    Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...st-republicans
    Last edited by The Doctor; 27 Dec 15, 09:06.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      I always liked that quote by President John Adams:

      "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence"

      Paul Giamatti did and excellent job portraying John Adams on the series a few years ago.
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
      Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

      Comment


      • #4
        Here is a typical example of PolitiFact lying on behalf of Democrats...
        "The head of the FBI has told Congress they cannot vet those (Syrian) refugees."
        — Ted Cruz on Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 in a GOP debate on CNN



        The FBI Director and other top national security people have said...
        “As they descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background?

        We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees.”

        --Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, 9 Sept. 2015
        "If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them."
        --FBI Director James Comey, October 2015
        “So I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that – there’s no risk associated with this."
        --FBI Director James Comey, October 2015
        “Well, we may have somebody who comes to us and is simply not on our radar for any discernible reason.”
        --DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, October 2015

        These officials have effectively stated publicly that "they cannot vet those (Syrian) refugees."

        PolitiDemoFact bases its "mostly false" rating on their own Strawman fallacy...
        The Cruz campaign forwarded us a report on Comey’s concerns over a bill put forward by Republicans that would toughen the refugee vetting process.

        The bill would require Comey — and other top national security officials — to personally certify every single refugee admitted into the United States was not a security threat. Comey, appearing before Congress on Dec. 9, said he couldn’t.

        "Could I certify to there being no risk associated with an individual?" he said. "The bureau doesn't take positions on legislation, and we don't get involved in policy decisions. But that practically would be impossible."

        But that’s not the same standard Cruz mentioned during the debate.

        For the record, the United States can vet the refugees through a process that involves the FBI as well as the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other agencies. The vetting process can take up to two years, in which refugees undergo several rounds of security clearance checks.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-they-cannot/
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Who is fact checking the fact checkers?

          Anyone interested in being informed on the issues doesn’t need a fact.checker. Unfortunately, most of the electorate is either uninterested in the issues or too lazy to become informed.

          The purpose of these Internet "fact checkers" is to provide CNN, NBC, etc. with an "unbiased" source to back up whatever lies the Democrats spew and the media parrots.
          Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

          http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...st-republicans


          PolitiFact has been and will continue to be very involved in "fact-checking" the 2016 presidential election. Even the Des Moines Register will have PolitiFact to fact check for them.



          http://www.politifact.com/iowa/artic...act-checking-/
          “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post
            I always liked that quote by President John Adams:

            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence"
            Which, of course, is total nonsense because the government's primary function is to alter, subvert or otherwise shape the "facts" into whatever lie suits their current purpose.

            "If you tell the people something often enough, it becomes the truth."
            Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda

            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              What the above shows is that the "fact checkers" apply different standards to their "facts."

              If the person or whatever under scrutiny is someone they agree with or favor they equivocate and give benefit of the doubt to when it comes to use of facts. So, if such a person said:

              "The head of the FBI has told Congress they cannot vet those (Syrian) refugees."

              As Cruz did, the fact checkers would credit that as mostly or completely true based on similar statements and statements that contained some degree of the same thing made by officials in the FBI, etc.

              If, on the other hand, the person making the statement is in opposition to their own political views the same statement is held to a literal standard. Since the director of the FBI didn't unequivocally make that exact statement to Congress it is counted as being false or mostly untrue.

              Comment


              • #8
                Remember the good old days when media publications and journalists did their own fact checking?

                PolitiFact loses credibility by teaming up with the mainstream media.
                “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                  Remember the good old days when media publications and journalists did their own fact checking?

                  PolitiFact loses credibility by teaming up with the mainstream media.
                  None of them are credible, all these of these fact checking sites have agendas, some left, some right only believe what you can see with your own eyes of what is actually happening not what you hear or someone telling you what is happening.
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                    None of them are credible, all these of these fact checking sites have agendas, some left, some right only believe what you can see with your own eyes of what is actually happening not what you hear or someone telling you what is happening.
                    But we live in a world where it is impossible for us to see and hear everything, or even a fraction of what occurs, in person...so?
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                      None of them are credible, all these of these fact checking sites have agendas, some left, some right only believe what you can see with your own eyes of what is actually happening not what you hear or someone telling you what is happening.
                      That's why all nuclear physicists are liars. They've never been able to show me an atom splitting, after all.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        That's why all nuclear physicists are liars. They've never been able to show me an atom splitting, after all.
                        You can't actually see the atom; but this is one of the things that happens when atoms split...

                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          You can't actually see the atom; but this is one of the things that happens when atoms split...

                          That's just smoke and mirrors. I've never seen an atomic explosion either, so those obviously can't happen as well.

                          If you want to prove it happens, split an atom for me while I'm watching. If I can't see it with my own eyes, it's not to be trusted.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            That's just smoke and mirrors. I've never seen an atomic explosion either, so those obviously can't happen as well.

                            If you want to prove it happens, split an atom for me while I'm watching. If I can't see it with my own eyes, it's not to be trusted.
                            You have never seen anyone here type a response yet you still reply.......

                            Do you need to see someone type before you reply
                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                              None of them are credible, all these of these fact checking sites have agendas, some left, some right only believe what you can see with your own eyes of what is actually happening not what you hear or someone telling you what is happening.
                              The old rule holds true: don't believe 75% of what you hear and only half of what you see.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X