Post by davegs on Jul 22, 2019 7:44:18 GMT -8
Having attempted to find just how much FaceBook contributed to PolitiFact over the 5% mentioned in a recent article, I could not find any result. I was interested because it might explain whether FB had undue influence in their advertised findings. Granted that Google, Yahoo and other search engines selectively edit their searches based on specially honed algorithms, I imagine this data might be available in other places - but have yet to find it.
This sparked a thought. In WikiPedia, several 'conspiracy' theories had been 'debunked' by PolitiFact as false. Well.... really?
I get that many 'conspiracy' theories are, indeed... just 'theories'. That's the nature of the beast, as it were. Some are absolutely crazy - such as some of the 'aliens among us' controlling the world governments - kind of thing. However, to lump that in along with whether the Obama administration sent organized protesters to the Zimmerman trial is another thing altogether. Enough evidence existed for Judicial Watch to file a FOIA request to find out more.
Nothing more is said about this other than that PolitiFact had reviewed the matter and found it 'false'. Really? How, exactly did they arrive at this conclusion? What I found about their technique is anything but clarifying. It seems that they basically, 'search the internet' and news archives.
If you look at the founders and staff, they are all card-carrying members of what we call the 'Main Stream Media'. It's this same MSM that we have come to doubt whether they are possible of truly fact based news delivery anymore. So what if they search the internet and news archives of other people that belong to the same MSM cartel - and think that's somehow clarifying? I don't think so.
Who gives PolitiFact the 'higher moral ground' here to make the right call whether anything is true or not true? Only they do and the people who agree with them - the MSM.
So, this sparked another idea - who fact checks the fact checkers? That's a good question. The Federalist had a go at this in - thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/ and I think they made a good case. Their findings indicate their decisions favor more liberal than conservative issues hands down. In others words - they find that conservatives lie more than liberals do.
I would think that if they were truly representative - we'd find the results much more evenly split.
Just sayin'
This sparked a thought. In WikiPedia, several 'conspiracy' theories had been 'debunked' by PolitiFact as false. Well.... really?
I get that many 'conspiracy' theories are, indeed... just 'theories'. That's the nature of the beast, as it were. Some are absolutely crazy - such as some of the 'aliens among us' controlling the world governments - kind of thing. However, to lump that in along with whether the Obama administration sent organized protesters to the Zimmerman trial is another thing altogether. Enough evidence existed for Judicial Watch to file a FOIA request to find out more.
Nothing more is said about this other than that PolitiFact had reviewed the matter and found it 'false'. Really? How, exactly did they arrive at this conclusion? What I found about their technique is anything but clarifying. It seems that they basically, 'search the internet' and news archives.
If you look at the founders and staff, they are all card-carrying members of what we call the 'Main Stream Media'. It's this same MSM that we have come to doubt whether they are possible of truly fact based news delivery anymore. So what if they search the internet and news archives of other people that belong to the same MSM cartel - and think that's somehow clarifying? I don't think so.
Who gives PolitiFact the 'higher moral ground' here to make the right call whether anything is true or not true? Only they do and the people who agree with them - the MSM.
So, this sparked another idea - who fact checks the fact checkers? That's a good question. The Federalist had a go at this in - thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/ and I think they made a good case. Their findings indicate their decisions favor more liberal than conservative issues hands down. In others words - they find that conservatives lie more than liberals do.
I would think that if they were truly representative - we'd find the results much more evenly split.
Just sayin'