|
On April 11 2017 23:58 ZBiR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:The bottom line, if you've been paying attention, is that American fact check websites rely on a left of center worldview to inform what's true but misleading and what's outright lies. I particularly like one blog's breakdown First case from this one is all I read. Show nested quote +And if you just look at the actual number of reversals, not only is the Ninth Circuit the one with the highest number, it’s not even close. Sure, but then: Show nested quote +The 9th Circuit is by far the largest circuit. In the 12 months leading up to March, 31, 2015, just under 12,000 cases were filed in the 9th Circuit — more than 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th Circuit. The manipulation is on your blogger's side, not the fact-checker. Try harder, please.
Sheer number of cases filed is not equatable with cases reviewed by the Supreme Court and then reversed or confirmed or other. 4,000 more than the next-largest circuit, the 5th, is much higher than the 77-27 (5th) or 77-28 (next highest, sixth). In any case, please tell me you comprehended the actual point. Any fact check on this issue should acknowledge the volume disparity before going on to discuss percentages if they want to earn the title of objective analysis. It actually truly is the more overturned court in the country, but not according to percentage, which any fact checked should print in its damn report. If you say Byun has won more tournament games, but it comes down to the fact he's played more tournament games total, you'd be remiss to not note the bulk wins before going on to address the percentages.
That is, unless your goal is also manipulation, or your opinion stems from ignorance.
|
There is no sense in which Hannity's claim that the 9th circuit is "the most overturned court in the country" is true. Neither by volume nor by percentage. Politifact was 100% right to call bullshit on it, you and the writers at the Federalist are making rather painfully-looking body contortions to make it seem otherwise.
Of course, even if by technicality you were barely right on this front, it doesn't mean Politifact has a systemic bias that makes it untrustworthy, that means it was barely wrong on one thing.
|
Politifact also provides citations to their reasoning, which people can review on their own and see if they agree with Politifact's conclusion. Which is more effort that most blogs put in.
|
On April 12 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:
Any fact check on this issue should acknowledge the volume disparity before going on to discuss percentages if they want to earn the title of objective analysis.
Yes, it would be better if they did.
It actually truly is the more overturned court in the country, but not according to percentage,
"the more overturned" does not by itself mean "by volume". It probably differs between individuals, but percentage differences are the first thing that comes to my mind. Besides, comparing volumes makes no sense when the circuits differ significantly in size (and I didn't even know that before so I felt manipulated after reading more).
|
It is the largest of all the Federal Appeals courts simply by the number of people that are under its jurisdiction. Which included the Philippines(Things I learned today, the Supreme court created that jurisdiction when congress refused to). Just looking into this, it appears that their reversal rate seems to be below national average. And they are also dealing with a larger variety of complex issues.
|
On April 12 2017 00:08 ZBiR wrote:
Yeah, I guess. But then, if the "felt facts" get even a little closer to the real facts, then it's worth it. Oh, and the Facebook Poland connections with socialist parties is bull. FB just removed the content that used radical nationalists' symbols, and rightfully so.
You also forgot to mention that said symbol is recognized by the state, which does not consider it extremist. Effectively, Facebook banned the organizers of the Independence March for putting the logo of one of the involved organizations on a poster, as well as banned many people for simply sharing the poster... It also frequently bans Lemingopedia, Żelazna Logika, etc. for no reason whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that Facebook does absolutely nothing e.g. about Stalinist sites, which apparently do not break 'community standards'.
To reiterate, Facebook bans far-right and even center-right sites for using a logo or even no reason at all, yet is fine with whitewashing of Stalinist crimes. That is beyond messed up.
Edit: And here's an example of fake news produced by a leftist "satirical' page on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/sokzburaka/photos/a.1452029521697738.1073741828.1452015088365848/1967111170189568/?type=3&theater
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/03/27/and-then-they-carried-me-off
SokzBuraka claimed that this happened in one of Polish cities during a protest. They post roughly one such fake story a day.
|
The state does not, the facebook does. Their choice. Would you say it's not justified?
Also, were plain people actually banned for that poster? I'd expect only the poster being removed, though it could just happen to be the last straw. Do you have any examples of stalinist sites that don't get persecuted? I've never heard of that.
Regarding sokzburaka, I don't have anything positive to say about them. I think I may have seen them state openly that they try to support PO, making them cetre-rightist, not leftist, and that they do get banned sometimes. I'd also say that the picture given is supposed to be a joke of some sort, as it's obvious it didn't happen in Poland - the policemen don't look like that, and it even says "Russia" in Cyrillic on their uniforms. I can't fathom how it could be considered funny though.
|
On April 12 2017 01:16 LightSpectra wrote:
There is no sense in which Hannity's claim that the 9th circuit is "the most overturned court in the country" is true. Neither by volume nor by percentage. Politifact was 100% right to call bullshit on it, you and the writers at the Federalist are making rather painfully-looking body contortions to make it seem otherwise.
Of course, even if by technicality you were barely right on this front, it doesn't mean Politifact has a systemic bias that makes it untrustworthy, that means it was barely wrong on one thing.
You got some alternative facts on volume? Because the only bullshit I see is your statement contrary to fact. That and your absurd characterizations. And if you're arguing technicalities, perhaps you won't cherry pick out of my links just one point you wish to argue. It has a clear record of mistruth throughout its life. Nitpicking about one or another of the criticisms is to deny the body of criticisms and remind right-leaning citizens that this was never about truth in fact-checkers to begin with, just journalistic op-eds on events of the day.
On April 12 2017 01:52 ZBiR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:
Any fact check on this issue should acknowledge the volume disparity before going on to discuss percentages if they want to earn the title of objective analysis. Yes, it would be better if they did. Show nested quote +It actually truly is the more overturned court in the country, but not according to percentage, "the more overturned" does not by itself mean "by volume". It probably differs between individuals, but percentage differences are the first thing that comes to my mind. Besides, comparing volumes makes no sense when the circuits differ significantly in size (and I didn't even know that before so I felt manipulated after reading more).
So clearly an unbiased rating system would have to discuss both before a conclusion. And an unambiguous conclusion would be akin to announcing the team that scored the most points in World Series is not the team that scored the most points in World Series; they've just played more games there. State clearly, discuss assumptions, conclude impartially ... all steps that would've helped the article not end up as a mess.
|
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity.
|
On April 12 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity.
If they're the most overturned court, it doesn't matter if you think they're proportionally justified, it matters that you report both and decide on your rating. Failing to provide the context, not even dismissing it after discussion, is a failure of journalism.
It's kind of like taking an article providing four cases of bias and nitpicking on one is absolutely admitting you have no desire to investigate allegations of systematic bias. Oops. Hey, more power to you if you're a big fan. You wouldn't be the first on the left to ignore articles that conflict with your internally held biases. I'm absolutely not singling you out any more than being the author of this thread's OP; allies that behave like you number in the millions in the US alone.
I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead.
|
On April 12 2017 01:03 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2017 07:47 a_flayer wrote:I'd seen this before, but I came across it again, and I think this is a good indication of this thing called "bias". It was one of the things that triggered me to investigate news from, shall we say, non-traditional sources. https://i.redd.it/05eyr96i66tx.pngAmerica reports on "NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough and two Russians" Russia reports on "cosmonauts Sergei Ryzhikov, Andrei Borisenko and NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough" The discrepancy is of course easily 'justified' by citing the American publics lack of interest in foreigners. However, I believe that this sort of bias is incredibly widespread all across American media, and consequently leads towards something much more toxic. Especially when it comes to more important matters than just astronauts/cosmonauts launching into space. Your comments are interesting  Obviously American media can't exactly be trusted without a thought or further reading. However, you seem to be incredibly pro-Russian media, which begs the question: Why would you trust state sponsored media? Same goes for that Turkey comment earlier in the thread....
I only come across as such because I deliberately take the opposite viewpoint in this environment where they are basically constantly bashed. I trust them to the same extent I trust the western media - to provide coverage of events from their perspective. And where many people hold the American perspective much higher than other perspectives, I do not. And quite frankly when either of these parties covers things said by any statesmen, I quickly turn on the scepticism.
In the case of RT America specifically, where as far as I can tell it's just American people covering events regarding America, I don't think they're any worse than the other western media (I'd even just count them amongst western media). Perhaps they are a bit younger and thus less refined in some ways, like any relatively young news organisation would be. I think they may even be a little better in terms of criticism, because they are not completely bought out by American corporations in the 'United Corporations of America'. People just think they are a 'Russian propaganda tool' because such criticism will cause dissent. There might be some truth to this in that RT America will specifically look to hire reporters & enlist pundits who will gladly dish out criticism, but then I will simply refer you to the idea of the 4th branch of government.
Which Turkey comment are you talking about?
On April 11 2017 22:12 LightSpectra wrote:
And what do other countries (not USA or Russia) say? I would expect that kind of nationalist bias in most media sources.
Indeed. Even reading a few articles regarding Dutch history on wikipedia gave me a different perspective compared to reading my Dutch history books as a teenager. The point with the NASA vs Roscosmos report was to illustrate that it's entirely possible for Russia (or other non-western sources) to, on occasion, provide a more neutral viewpoint, or at least complete the viewpoint in case one part is left out for whatever reason. You will, inevitably, miss out on the complete picture by limiting yourself to just one side when reading about a war, for example (especially when it is an ongoing event).
People talk about green little men (aka Russian soldiers) crossing borders sometimes. I'd say that's definitely a thing. But, well, perhaps there are - and have been, in the past - certain orange Americans on the other side of this who like to label everything that opposes them as propaganda and falsehoods, or, as one might say, 'fake news'.
|
On April 12 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity. If they're the most overturned court, it doesn't matter if you think they're proportionally justified, it matters that you report both and decide on your rating. Failing to provide the context, not even dismissing it after discussion, is a failure of journalism. It's kind of like taking an article providing four cases of bias and nitpicking on one is absolutely admitting you have no desire to investigate allegations of systematic bias. Oops. Hey, more power to you if you're a big fan. You wouldn't be the first on the left to ignore articles that conflict with your internally held biases. I'm absolutely not singling you out any more than being the author of this thread's OP; allies that behave like you number in the millions in the US alone. I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead.
So context doesn’t matter? The 2nd district and the 9th district are exactly the same in population and scope of their jurisdiction? No differences at all?
|
On April 12 2017 05:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:On April 12 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity. If they're the most overturned court, it doesn't matter if you think they're proportionally justified, it matters that you report both and decide on your rating. Failing to provide the context, not even dismissing it after discussion, is a failure of journalism. It's kind of like taking an article providing four cases of bias and nitpicking on one is absolutely admitting you have no desire to investigate allegations of systematic bias. Oops. Hey, more power to you if you're a big fan. You wouldn't be the first on the left to ignore articles that conflict with your internally held biases. I'm absolutely not singling you out any more than being the author of this thread's OP; allies that behave like you number in the millions in the US alone. I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead. So context doesn’t matter? The 2nd district and the 9th district are exactly the same in population and scope of their jurisdiction? No differences at all?
Let's separate out journalists refusing to state context on their articles and what the article did say and was right to say, shall we? When I said they failed to provide the context, I meant they failed to provide the context, not that context didn't matter. Surely even you can comprehend that point?
|
On April 12 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 05:44 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:On April 12 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity. If they're the most overturned court, it doesn't matter if you think they're proportionally justified, it matters that you report both and decide on your rating. Failing to provide the context, not even dismissing it after discussion, is a failure of journalism. It's kind of like taking an article providing four cases of bias and nitpicking on one is absolutely admitting you have no desire to investigate allegations of systematic bias. Oops. Hey, more power to you if you're a big fan. You wouldn't be the first on the left to ignore articles that conflict with your internally held biases. I'm absolutely not singling you out any more than being the author of this thread's OP; allies that behave like you number in the millions in the US alone. I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead. So context doesn’t matter? The 2nd district and the 9th district are exactly the same in population and scope of their jurisdiction? No differences at all? Let's separate out journalists refusing to state context on their articles and what the article did say and was right to say, shall we? When I said they failed to provide the context, I meant they failed to provide the context, not that context didn't matter. Surely even you can comprehend that point?
Why doesn’t context matter?
|
On April 12 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On April 12 2017 05:44 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:On April 12 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity. If they're the most overturned court, it doesn't matter if you think they're proportionally justified, it matters that you report both and decide on your rating. Failing to provide the context, not even dismissing it after discussion, is a failure of journalism. It's kind of like taking an article providing four cases of bias and nitpicking on one is absolutely admitting you have no desire to investigate allegations of systematic bias. Oops. Hey, more power to you if you're a big fan. You wouldn't be the first on the left to ignore articles that conflict with your internally held biases. I'm absolutely not singling you out any more than being the author of this thread's OP; allies that behave like you number in the millions in the US alone. I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead. So context doesn’t matter? The 2nd district and the 9th district are exactly the same in population and scope of their jurisdiction? No differences at all? Let's separate out journalists refusing to state context on their articles and what the article did say and was right to say, shall we? When I said they failed to provide the context, I meant they failed to provide the context, not that context didn't matter. Surely even you can comprehend that point? Why doesn’t context matter?
When I said they failed to provide the context, I meant they failed to provide the context, not that context didn't matter. Surely even you can comprehend that point?
You astound and amaze. PM me if you want to resume this discussion at a more opportune time.
|
On April 12 2017 06:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On April 12 2017 05:44 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:On April 12 2017 04:47 LightSpectra wrote:
No reasonable person would read Hannity's statement and think that he is talking about volume and not proportion. He was painting the 9th circuit as some partisan radical/incompetent court whose decisions are always overturned.
Danglars, this really isn't the hill you want to die on. If you're going to prove that the fact checkers in the OP have a systemic bias, it's not going to be over Sean Hannity. If they're the most overturned court, it doesn't matter if you think they're proportionally justified, it matters that you report both and decide on your rating. Failing to provide the context, not even dismissing it after discussion, is a failure of journalism. It's kind of like taking an article providing four cases of bias and nitpicking on one is absolutely admitting you have no desire to investigate allegations of systematic bias. Oops. Hey, more power to you if you're a big fan. You wouldn't be the first on the left to ignore articles that conflict with your internally held biases. I'm absolutely not singling you out any more than being the author of this thread's OP; allies that behave like you number in the millions in the US alone. I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead. So context doesn’t matter? The 2nd district and the 9th district are exactly the same in population and scope of their jurisdiction? No differences at all? Let's separate out journalists refusing to state context on their articles and what the article did say and was right to say, shall we? When I said they failed to provide the context, I meant they failed to provide the context, not that context didn't matter. Surely even you can comprehend that point? Why doesn’t context matter? Show nested quote +When I said they failed to provide the context, I meant they failed to provide the context, not that context didn't matter. Surely even you can comprehend that point? You astound and amaze. PM me if you want to resume this discussion at a more opportune time.
I understood what you wrote. It just doesn’t line up with the reality of the discussion. Technically correct isn’t much of an argument. Especially when an 8th grade understanding of proportions and ratios undermines it.
|
On April 12 2017 03:24 ZBiR wrote:
The state does not, the facebook does. Their choice. Would you say it's not justified?
Also, were plain people actually banned for that poster? I'd expect only the poster being removed, though it could just happen to be the last straw. Do you have any examples of stalinist sites that don't get persecuted? I've never heard of that.
I would say Facebook has some terrible double standards. It bans for having a poster with a logo of an organization it doesn't like, but is perfectly okay with communist symbolism and Stalinist propaganda. Those are two communist pages I reported a year ago. According to Facebook, they do not break the 'community standards'.
https://www.facebook.com/stalinowcy/
https://www.facebook.com/Komunistyczna.Mlodziez.Polski/
And yes, Facebook also banned many regular people for simply sharing the poster. You can also check out the Twitter feed or Facebook history (if that is possible) of the Independence March Facebook page to see that, while some of their members might harbor real racist sentiments, you'll be hard pressed to find any such content on their social media. They are very cautious about it. All it comes down to is guilt by association.
If Facebook comes up with universal rules that will be applied across the board, the right and the left alike, I will be fine with that. Currently it gives the left a lot of leeway and turns a blind eye to actual "hate speech", while routinely harassing pages with viewpoints it disagrees with (it was especially bad last year).
Regarding sokzburaka, I don't have anything positive to say about them. I think I may have seen them state openly that they try to support PO, making them cetre-rightist, not leftist, and that they do get banned sometimes. I'd also say that the picture given is supposed to be a joke of some sort, as it's obvious it didn't happen in Poland - the policemen don't look like that, and it even says "Russia" in Cyrillic on their uniforms. I can't fathom how it could be considered funny though.
I did not know they openly stated that they support PO. Any source for that? Also, PO during its last four years in the government moved to center/center-left. Besides that, SokzBuraka is pro-abortion (I am not saying "pro-choice" because they showed support towards vulgar, militant feminism) and frequently attacks religion, which is why I called them "leftist".
I don't have any information about them getting banned by Facebook. Perhaps getting temporarily blocked, although I highly doubt that because I reported them several times for slanderous posts/"hate speech" and fake news, to no avail. They don't go beyond that so what would get them banned? Are you sure you're not confusing it with that one time when there were some technical difficulties and SokzBuraka was unavailable, and people thought it got banned?
You'd be surprised how gullible many of SokzBuraka's fans are. While the photo from Russia was pretty obvious, there are examples which are not. Other fake news include "240k people at KOD's march" (when in reality roughly 45-65k people attended), "PiS wants to ban abortion", fake quotes by members of PiS that make them look especially stupid (e.g. Beata Szydło advising homeless people to stay at home when it's very cold outside) and quotes taken completely out of context. They mix it with content that is factually correct and their fans simply buy all of it.
None of their content is supposed to be funny. It's supposed to rile people up against PiS. ASZDziennik actually tries to be funny and is doing a decent job, despite its obvious bias.
|
On April 12 2017 16:35 maybenexttime wrote:I would say Facebook has some terrible double standards. It bans for having a poster with a logo of an organization it doesn't like, but is perfectly okay with communist symbolism and Stalinist propaganda. Those are two communist pages I reported a year ago. According to Facebook, they do not break the 'community standards'. https://www.facebook.com/stalinowcy/https://www.facebook.com/Komunistyczna.Mlodziez.Polski/
Yeah, those indeed look ridiculous. I actually know one guy that follows the second one. Terrible.
I did not know they openly stated that they support PO. Any source for that? Also, PO during its last four years in the government moved to center/center-left. Besides that, SokzBuraka is pro-abortion (I am not saying "pro-choice" because they showed support towards vulgar, militant feminism) and frequently attacks religion, which is why I called them "leftist".
I don't have any information about them getting banned by Facebook. Perhaps getting temporarily blocked, although I highly doubt that because I reported them several times for slanderous posts/"hate speech" and fake news, to no avail. They don't go beyond that so what would get them banned? Are you sure you're not confusing it with that one time when there were some technical difficulties and SokzBuraka was unavailable, and people thought it got banned?
Here they say they support PO, but also N and KOD. I might have misremembered that, and bans probably were indeed only temporary. I'm pretty sure you can't report fanpages for fake news or slander against public figures unless it encourages violence, as this is how free speech works in the USA I guess. FB only offers you to hide their posts for you. I also disagree about PO becoming centre-left, but it's off topic here.
|
My point was that if it did not get banned for things I reported it for, then I find it unlikely they would ban it for anything, because it doesn't post anything worse than that.
Add to that the fact that Sylwia de Weydenthal, a pretty important figure in Polish Facebook (not sure what her position is called), is a fan of SokzBuraka, and that right-wind Facebook pages were all hyped when they thought SokzBuraka got banned (it was in fact a technical issue), I find it unlikely that the page was actually banned, because I think I would've heard about that.
|
On April 12 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:
I'm at risk of repeating the same ignored points that happened in the fake news reporting after Trump won. A little more self-reflection, a little more hiring of a diverse political writing team, and reporting the true/false breakdowns and none of these nonsense 'mostly false but technically true' BS. It remains that current-generation fact checks are probably too poisoned for use, and old school "read both sides" techniques ought to be used instead.
There's nothing demonstrably wrong with our current fact checkers (Snopes, Politifact, etc.) except people like you that try to paint them as the Pravda because you (putatively) found one tiny little error in them. Maybe if you had such harsh scrutiny for Breitbart/WND/FOX/the Blaze/et al. there wouldn't be such a problem with politicians and newscasters like Trump and Hannity lying their asses off without repercussions.
The problem with "read both sides" is that sometimes, one side is saying that there's a Muslim rape-mob crossing Frankfurt and molesting thousands of women, and then there's one side that says it's not happening. The partisan divide here is not microscopic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
