The Troubling Fact Is That Media Fact-Checkers Tend to Lean ← Left

[Chris]

How is saying "fact checkers are not reliable" any different from saying, "How can you believe that? It was in the New York Times!" (or the Wall Street Journal, or on Fox News, or on townhall.com, or what-have-you?) I believe it's fine to criticize individual fact checkers or individual instances of fact checking, but to generalize about "fact checkers" is uncalled for. In too many instances, it's simply a convenient method of dismissing truths one doesn't want to hear. Anti-gun activists are always repeating false or misleading statistics; are the fact checkers who correct them not to be trusted either?

It's not different.

Does that say all are unreliable? No, but that you need to fact-check the fact-checkers. You can't just post a fact-checker as some sort of proof.

[Chris]

Facts have changed? Who knew. I you jump off a roof will you now float? Putin [Russian trolls] helped Trump that is kinda obvious, Trump called on Russia to hurt Clinton, that too is obvious. The trouble with the right in America today is their blinders are on too tight, they only see what they want to see. But what many miss is bias in reporting, the site above is linked below. Bias taints facts or ignores them or modifies them. Trump's relation with Putin is clear, his motivation less clear. His Russian invite to the oval office is a fact, his failure to believe Russian criticism is obvious too. We can only speculate why. See Question at bottom.

Let's go out on a Freudian limb here, is Putin dad for Trump, the hard father he looked up to, who he wishes he were more like? Freud is always fun.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...foreign-policy

'There is no middle ground for deep disagreements about facts'

https://aeon.co/ideas/there-is-no-mi...ts-about-facts


Site used for OP: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-...nvestigations/


Trolls, have you noticed many? Elections bring them out, often their registration date is a giveaway.

Nowhere is it said that facts change. Try reading the OP again.

[Chris]

Facts have changed? Who knew. I you jump off a roof will you now float? Putin [Russian trolls] helped Trump that is kinda obvious, Trump called on Russia to hurt Clinton, that too is obvious. The trouble with the right in America today is their blinders are on too tight, they only see what they want to see. But what many miss is bias in reporting, the site above is linked below. Bias taints facts or ignores them or modifies them. Trump's relation with Putin is clear, his motivation less clear. His Russian invite to the oval office is a fact, his failure to believe Russian criticism is obvious too. We can only speculate why. See Question at bottom.

Let's go out on a Freudian limb here, is Putin dad for Trump, the hard father he looked up to, who he wishes he were more like? Freud is always fun.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...foreign-policy

'There is no middle ground for deep disagreements about facts'

https://aeon.co/ideas/there-is-no-mi...ts-about-facts


Site used for OP: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-...nvestigations/


Trolls, have you noticed many? Elections bring them out, often their registration date is a giveaway.

Nowhere is it said that facts change. Try reading the OP again.

[carolina73]

Criticizing individual examples of "fact checking" that one believes to be biased is a legitimate undertaking. However dismissing fact checkingitself on the grounds that fact checkers "tend to lean left" is an example of poisoning the well. As we frequently see on this forum, poisoning the well is easier.

Not at all. They were created by a left wing leading media to verify themselves and their propaganda. Then they create other websites to verify how brilliant each of the others are.

You do not know what is right, left or center. Neither do they. Neither do those on the right.
Almost everyone thinks that they are the center and politics is measured by their own views.

To me, when Media Bias sites render their opinions they are almost always to the left and when they pin it to the left then they should usually double it in my mind. I'm in the center. Your not.

[Chris]

Says an article written by a notorious right-wing hack.

Nice ad hom. Dismissed.

[Chris]

I agree that it's an ad hom, in that you're essentially attacking the source of the information - "fact checkers" - rather than the information itself; but it could also be considered poisoning the well in the sense that you've set up anything a fact checker says to be discounted on the basis of an error or misleading statement that he or some other fact checker altogether might have ever made.

That I think misses the point. The OP isn't saying dismiss all fact-checkers but just don't take any at face value as being factual and unbiased. Fact-check the fact-checker.

[RichardMZhlubb]

That I think misses the point. The OP isn't saying dismiss all fact-checkers but just don't take any at face value as being factual and unbiased. Fact-check the fact-checker.

So, we should consider the track record and biases of the person making the fact check? The very thing you just criticized me for doing two minutes before this post?

[Chris]

So, we should consider the track record and biases of the person making the fact check? The very thing you just criticized me for doing two minutes before this post?

Only if it can be shown that that bias distorted the facts and data and argument presented. And it is incumbent on you to show it, not merely suggest it as you did.

[Standing Wolf]

Only if it can be shown that that bias distorted the facts and data and argument presented. And it is incumbent on you to show it, not merely suggest it as you did.

Wouldn't the ideal answer be to question every instance of "fact checking", regardless of the identity or known bias of the fact checker?

It's frustrating when someone cites Snopes, for instance, and the person whose bubble you've just burst by doing so scoffs at the link without making any kind of honest attempt to refute the content.

[Chris]

Wouldn't the ideal answer be to question every instance of "fact checking", regardless of the identity or known bias of the fact checker?

It's frustrating when someone cites Snopes, for instance, and the person whose bubble you've just burst by doing so scoffs at the link without making any kind of honest attempt to refute the content.

Yes, that's was what I thought was the point of the OP. Not that all are necessarily untrustworthy but need to be checked. As Reagan said, trust but verify?

And, yes, you need to do more than merely scoof at the source, you need to show or explain why it's not to be trusted.