Difference between revisions of "Fact checker"
(constitutes) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|wikipedia= | |wikipedia= | ||
|image=Fact checker.png | |image=Fact checker.png | ||
| + | |image_width=420px | ||
|constitutes=propagandist, Orwellian language, fact checking | |constitutes=propagandist, Orwellian language, fact checking | ||
|so_called=1 | |so_called=1 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
|description=An individual or group trusted to investigate the truth of news. In practice, professional fact checkers test whether news conforms to their employers' opinions. | |description=An individual or group trusted to investigate the truth of news. In practice, professional fact checkers test whether news conforms to their employers' opinions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | '''"Fact checkers"''' | + | '''"Fact checkers"''' could be described as "professional ass-coverers"<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fact-checking-takes-another-beating-taibbi</ref>, in the sense that their activities (which the {{ccm}} refer to as "[[fact checking]]") is designed to remove any evidence which disagrees with the {{on}} du jour of those who paid for the "checking". |
==Official narrative== | ==Official narrative== | ||
| − | In pre-internet days, a small number of [[journalist]]s produced the news and their work had to pass the scrutiny of experienced and wise [[editor]]s, so while occasional mistakes were made, news production was more or less reliable because those involved were rewarded for objective reporting. | + | [[image:Fake fact.gif|left|300px]] |
| + | In pre-[[internet]] days, a small number of [[journalist]]s produced the news and their work had to pass the scrutiny of experienced and wise [[editor]]s, so while occasional mistakes were made, news production was more or less reliable because those involved were rewarded for objective reporting. | ||
The [[internet]] upset this status quo, by allowing anyone to publish news — resuling in a surfeit of socially divisive "[[fake news]]". Because [[social media]] allows people to send any stories to their friends, there is a proliferation of [[clickbait]] (deliberately shocking falsehoods) instead of reliable news. People have become confused and so less and less able to discern truth from lies, so they need professional "fact checkers" to help verify stories for them. | The [[internet]] upset this status quo, by allowing anyone to publish news — resuling in a surfeit of socially divisive "[[fake news]]". Because [[social media]] allows people to send any stories to their friends, there is a proliferation of [[clickbait]] (deliberately shocking falsehoods) instead of reliable news. People have become confused and so less and less able to discern truth from lies, so they need professional "fact checkers" to help verify stories for them. | ||
==Origins== | ==Origins== | ||
| + | [[File:AP fact check.jpg|Things on [[social media]] can be wrong. But when it comes to the bigger picture/agenda, "Fact checkers" will make sure to always ask the right experts. Have "Fact checkers" ever found against [[Big Pharma]] and/or government policy? Or are their findings always of a certain bend?|thumb|570px]] | ||
The purported need for "fact checkers" is part of the ill-fated "[[fake news website]]" project that aimed to try to reverse decreasing trust in {{ccm}}. They function as a cover for [[internet censorship]]. | The purported need for "fact checkers" is part of the ill-fated "[[fake news website]]" project that aimed to try to reverse decreasing trust in {{ccm}}. They function as a cover for [[internet censorship]]. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 27: | ||
# Non-professionals are unable (or unwilling) to check facts for themselves; & | # Non-professionals are unable (or unwilling) to check facts for themselves; & | ||
# Professional "fact checkers" will be more impartial and more accurate at discerning truth from falsehood | # Professional "fact checkers" will be more impartial and more accurate at discerning truth from falsehood | ||
| − | + | Research has "found that in the majority of cases, the fact-checkers are just as subject to bias as the news they evaluate."<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/03/30/report-supposedly-impartial-fact-checkers-driven-political-prejudices/</ref> | |
===Misdirection=== | ===Misdirection=== | ||
The [[deception by corporate media]] is often ''not'' by incorrect facts, but by more subtle means such as misleading interpretations, biased language or selective omission of relevant facts. | The [[deception by corporate media]] is often ''not'' by incorrect facts, but by more subtle means such as misleading interpretations, biased language or selective omission of relevant facts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Under-qualified=== | ||
| + | There are examples that "professional fact-checkers" are not even able to read/understand the material they are reporting about. The [[German]] journalist [[Pascal Siggelkow]], for the premier news program of the [[public broadcaster]] [[ARD]] (Tagesschau), critically investigated the claim of "plant shaped C4 charges" in [[Seymour Hersh]]' reporting on the [[Nord Stream/Sabotage|North Stream bombing]].<ref>Sprengstoff in Pflanzenform unwahrscheinlich - "Hersh schreibt, die Taucher hätten den plastischen Sprengstoff C4 "in Form von Pflanzen auf den vier Pipelines mit Betonschutzhüllen" platziert." - https://web.archive.org/web/20230223125045/https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/nord-stream-explosionen-hersh-101.html saved via [https://archive.is/c8Z5V Archive.is]</ref> He misread the word "plant", as in placing, as "plant" the organism; despite the word "planted" and "plant" used several times throughout the article accordingly by Hersh, so he asked an expert if it is likely that C4 charges would be created in the form of a plant that grows underwater.<ref>https://www.sott.net/article/477670-Worlds-most-ridiculous-fact-checker-mistakes-a-verb-for-a-noun-pens-nonsense-paragraphs-explaining-why-Hershs-Nord-Stream-reporting-must-be-wrong-because-explosive-seaweed-is-impossible saved at [https://web.archive.org/web/20230224210630/https://www.sott.net/article/477670-Worlds-most-ridiculous-fact-checker-mistakes-a-verb-for-a-noun-pens-nonsense-paragraphs-explaining-why-Hershs-Nord-Stream-reporting-must-be-wrong-because-explosive-seaweed-is-impossible Archive.org] saved at [https://archive.is/LaF3L Archive.is]</ref><ref>http://archive.today/2023.02.25-114336/https://twitter.com/argonerd/status/1628987094927560706</ref><ref>https://www.t-online.de/unterhaltung/tv/id_100134408/ard-format-faktenfinder-blamiert-sich-mit-uebersetzungsfehler.html</ref> It apparently also escaped the quality control (if any). The demolition expert believes Siggelkow used google translate.<ref>https://sprengtechnik.de/sprengstoff-in-pflanzenform/ saved at [https://web.archive.org/web/20230224150921/https://sprengtechnik.de/sprengstoff-in-pflanzenform/ Archive.org] saved at [https://archive.is/lxgI4 Archive.is]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Exposure== | ||
| + | [[image:politifact_mostly_false_that_the_delta_variant_is_approximately_19_times_less_deadly.png|left|thumbnail|420px|The consistent use of "fact checking" to try to promote [[COVID panic]] in 2020-21 eroded the credibility of the concept.]] | ||
| + | The {{ccm}} made heavy use of "fact checkers" to try to promote [[fear of COVID-19]], leading to an erosion of the effectiveness of the concept. [[PolitiFact]] reversed its "Pants on fire" evaluation of the theory that the virus emerged from a lab. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Danielle Anderson, a [[Facebook]] "Fact Checker" who claimed that there was no possibility that [[COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology]] was later revealed to have worked [[Wuhan Institute of Virology|there]] for 2 years on coronaviruses.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/health/conflict-interest-facebook-fact-checker-worked-wuhan-biolab-ruled-out-virus-leak-while</ref> | ||
==Artificial intelligence== | ==Artificial intelligence== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:19, 11 June 2023
 "Fact checker"(propagandist, Orwellian language, “fact checking”)   | |
|---|---|
 | |
| An individual or group trusted to investigate the truth of news. In practice, professional fact checkers test whether news conforms to their employers' opinions. |
"Fact checkers" could be described as "professional ass-coverers"[1], in the sense that their activities (which the commercially-controlled media refer to as "fact checking") is designed to remove any evidence which disagrees with the official narrative du jour of those who paid for the "checking".
Contents
Official narrative
In pre-internet days, a small number of journalists produced the news and their work had to pass the scrutiny of experienced and wise editors, so while occasional mistakes were made, news production was more or less reliable because those involved were rewarded for objective reporting.
The internet upset this status quo, by allowing anyone to publish news — resuling in a surfeit of socially divisive "fake news". Because social media allows people to send any stories to their friends, there is a proliferation of clickbait (deliberately shocking falsehoods) instead of reliable news. People have become confused and so less and less able to discern truth from lies, so they need professional "fact checkers" to help verify stories for them.
Origins
The purported need for "fact checkers" is part of the ill-fated "fake news website" project that aimed to try to reverse decreasing trust in commercially-controlled media. They function as a cover for internet censorship.
Concerns
Who shall "fact check" the "fact checkers"? In practice, the commercially-controlled media rely on a narrowly selected group of institutions as "fact checkers", all of which are funded by the establishment and are de facto committed to supporting it.
Professional competence & impartiality?
The case for professional "fact checkers" rest on the assumptions that:
- Non-professionals are unable (or unwilling) to check facts for themselves; &
- Professional "fact checkers" will be more impartial and more accurate at discerning truth from falsehood
Research has "found that in the majority of cases, the fact-checkers are just as subject to bias as the news they evaluate."[2]
Misdirection
The deception by corporate media is often not by incorrect facts, but by more subtle means such as misleading interpretations, biased language or selective omission of relevant facts.
Under-qualified
There are examples that "professional fact-checkers" are not even able to read/understand the material they are reporting about. The German journalist Pascal Siggelkow, for the premier news program of the public broadcaster ARD (Tagesschau), critically investigated the claim of "plant shaped C4 charges" in Seymour Hersh' reporting on the North Stream bombing.[3] He misread the word "plant", as in placing, as "plant" the organism; despite the word "planted" and "plant" used several times throughout the article accordingly by Hersh, so he asked an expert if it is likely that C4 charges would be created in the form of a plant that grows underwater.[4][5][6] It apparently also escaped the quality control (if any). The demolition expert believes Siggelkow used google translate.[7]
Exposure
The commercially-controlled media made heavy use of "fact checkers" to try to promote fear of COVID-19, leading to an erosion of the effectiveness of the concept. PolitiFact reversed its "Pants on fire" evaluation of the theory that the virus emerged from a lab.
Danielle Anderson, a Facebook "Fact Checker" who claimed that there was no possibility that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was later revealed to have worked there for 2 years on coronaviruses.[8]
Artificial intelligence
- Full article: Artificial intelligence
- Full article: Artificial intelligence
Currently, professional fact checkers can only check a tiny proportion of news output, so software is used to flag up particular stories (or authors) for them to look at.
Various efforts have been made to replace human "fact checkers" process, but as of 2019, the fundamental obstacle that computers cannot reliably parse English (or other human languages) remains insurmountable, rendering automated "fact checking" inherently fallible.
Examples
| Page name | Description |
|---|---|
| BBC/Verify | A BBC "fact checking service" |
| Bulgaria Analytica | "Fack checker" with "notably opaque" funding |
| Correctiv | German-based officially private and corporate-financed "fake news" "fact checker". |
| Credibility Coalition | fact checker |
| Detector Media | NATO-backed Russian language "fact checker" |
| Faktisk | Norwegian "fact-checking" website with close personnel ties to the intelligence services and the military. |
| First Draft | "Anti-disinformation" organization founded in 2015, when NATO started a drive to control the news narrative. |
| Full Fact | A "fact checker" which was active in promoting the official narrative about the COVID-19 jabs |
| Google News Initiative | Google and the deep state buying domination over corporate media and creating tools to censor independent voices. |
| Media Bias/Fact Check | A "fact checker" that announces it is "dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices"... #2 on a list of Zero Hedge's Top 9 “fakest ‘fake-news’ checkers.” |
| Metabunk | Credulous debunking website operated by Mick West |
| PolitiFact | Poynter Institute run "fact checker". |
| Snopes | Named as a fact-checking site. "Accurate, but they never address the real question at hand..." |
| Social Observatory for Disinformation and Social Media Analysis | EU-funded "fact checker". |
| StopFake | Spooky "fact checking" website to counter "Russian Propaganda". Backed by an alliance of groups including the Integrity Initiative. Some staff crossover with the Institute for Statecraft. |
| USA Today | American newspaper, "Neutral fact checker" according to Big Tech |
Related Quotations
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU/Censorship | “Facts are one thing and opinions are another. Opinions are free; facts are facts.” | Joseph Borrell | 10 June 2020 |
| Norbert Häring | “A fact-checking scene coordinated from the United States, paid for by the EU and supported by the federal government ensures that all media are supplied with narrative-faithful agency reports on important topics, which they disseminate, and remain true to the narrative prescribed from above in their own reports and comments. From this point of view, it also explains why the fact checks are often so openly tendentious and the arguments are borderline retarded. It's not primarily about convincing someone with these fact checks. Its main function is to announce to the media landscape what are the topics on which a narrative must be respected and what this narrative is.” | Norbert Häring | June 2024 |
An official example
| Name |
|---|
| EXPOSE Network |
References
- ↑ https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fact-checking-takes-another-beating-taibbi
- ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/03/30/report-supposedly-impartial-fact-checkers-driven-political-prejudices/
- ↑ Sprengstoff in Pflanzenform unwahrscheinlich - "Hersh schreibt, die Taucher hätten den plastischen Sprengstoff C4 "in Form von Pflanzen auf den vier Pipelines mit Betonschutzhüllen" platziert." - https://web.archive.org/web/20230223125045/https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/nord-stream-explosionen-hersh-101.html saved via Archive.is
- ↑ https://www.sott.net/article/477670-Worlds-most-ridiculous-fact-checker-mistakes-a-verb-for-a-noun-pens-nonsense-paragraphs-explaining-why-Hershs-Nord-Stream-reporting-must-be-wrong-because-explosive-seaweed-is-impossible saved at Archive.org saved at Archive.is
- ↑ http://archive.today/2023.02.25-114336/https://twitter.com/argonerd/status/1628987094927560706
- ↑ https://www.t-online.de/unterhaltung/tv/id_100134408/ard-format-faktenfinder-blamiert-sich-mit-uebersetzungsfehler.html
- ↑ https://sprengtechnik.de/sprengstoff-in-pflanzenform/ saved at Archive.org saved at Archive.is
- ↑ https://www.zerohedge.com/health/conflict-interest-facebook-fact-checker-worked-wuhan-biolab-ruled-out-virus-leak-while
