Fact Checking Sites
Discussion
I've noticed these sites seem to have burgeoned from nowhere in the last few years but are they really altruistic ventures to inform the public or something else? - I'm a natural sceptic but can't help feel there is rather more to them than the former.
Setting aside the philosophical question of whether the public really need to be nannied into deciding what they wish to believe in the media (my starting position is nowt FWIW), it seems to me that many of the so called 'facts' that they 'check', and then pronounce as facts, are not much more than a mixture of second hand anecdote garnered from the general media then mixed with the facts checkers' opinion.
Secondly, who decides which 'facts' they check and which ones they decide not to check (I guess that's a rhetorical question)?
I can't help but feel they are just another media based opinion shaper/nudger but then perhaps I'm just too much of a sceptic!
Setting aside the philosophical question of whether the public really need to be nannied into deciding what they wish to believe in the media (my starting position is nowt FWIW), it seems to me that many of the so called 'facts' that they 'check', and then pronounce as facts, are not much more than a mixture of second hand anecdote garnered from the general media then mixed with the facts checkers' opinion.
Secondly, who decides which 'facts' they check and which ones they decide not to check (I guess that's a rhetorical question)?
I can't help but feel they are just another media based opinion shaper/nudger but then perhaps I'm just too much of a sceptic!
Quite. Who watches the watchmen?
Of course, it would help if some people didn't fill the internet with b
ks in the first place, but we can't have everything we want I suppose.
I would still rather be in a society where a self appointed fact check industry tries to nudge opinion their way, than China: where outside internet is censored, and you get a friendly invitation from the secret police to sign a confession after a unpaid stay at one of their facilities if you post something the authorieties don't like.
Of course, it would help if some people didn't fill the internet with b
ks in the first place, but we can't have everything we want I suppose.I would still rather be in a society where a self appointed fact check industry tries to nudge opinion their way, than China: where outside internet is censored, and you get a friendly invitation from the secret police to sign a confession after a unpaid stay at one of their facilities if you post something the authorieties don't like.
To me the vast majority of it just seems to be another way of pushing the opposite agenda or opinion, not 'fact' based or finding the centre ground at all, just finding other academic opinion that meets with whatever the clearly biased 'fact'checker's agenda is, consensus or trying the hardest to keep conjecture out of what they reference (which is surely should be the whole point of fact checking!?) doesn't even come into it.
Every one I've seen that was trying to debunk things outside the media and govt. line on the virus, very reasonable questions and even things which are provable by the stats, were exactly this. I mean, I would say that as I'm on the cure worse than disease side of the fence, but again none of this seems to be done as any true fact checking should be.
Every one I've seen that was trying to debunk things outside the media and govt. line on the virus, very reasonable questions and even things which are provable by the stats, were exactly this. I mean, I would say that as I'm on the cure worse than disease side of the fence, but again none of this seems to be done as any true fact checking should be.
Edited by Winterway on Wednesday 16th December 13:32
https://fullfact.org/health/pearson-telegraph-whit...
This is a good example of bias, and by being biased thus negating any benefit the site may have
The telegraph said they cherry picked the 29 worse hospitals and implied that was the situation more broadly, to push lockdown 2
Full fact said they didn't
"Ms Pearson may be referring to the briefing that took place on 31 October—before England’s second national lockdown was introduced—when slides were shown which did highlight some specific hospitals which had higher bed occupancy than during the first Covid-19 peak. "
Judge for yourself (DM photo)
This is a good example of bias, and by being biased thus negating any benefit the site may have
The telegraph said they cherry picked the 29 worse hospitals and implied that was the situation more broadly, to push lockdown 2
Full fact said they didn't
"Ms Pearson may be referring to the briefing that took place on 31 October—before England’s second national lockdown was introduced—when slides were shown which did highlight some specific hospitals which had higher bed occupancy than during the first Covid-19 peak. "
Judge for yourself (DM photo)
1974nc said:
Yes that is the main issue, where these fact checks are built in to social media platforms.Previously you'd Google any questionable claims you saw on Facebook, which then may or may not take you to an impartial source. No you'd better hope FB agree otherwise you don't even see said claim.
We are truly in the post truth era where a media outlet will be accused of fake news by the government, despite using their own statistics
1974nc said:
Sky News Australia appears to be somewhat to the right of Fox News in the US.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff