Members banned from this thread: AProudLefty and ParachuteAdams


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: "Fact checking" is the new propaganda ministry

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default "Fact checking" is the new propaganda ministry



    YouTube has removed an episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” featuring Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine scientist who invented the mRNA technology widely used in the COVID-19 vaccines.

    Dr. Malone said, “Very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad.”

    Dr. Malone chalked up this phenomenon to mass formation psychosis: “When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other, and has free floating anxiety in a sense that things don’t make sense.”

    “We can’t understand it,” he added. “And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere.”

    The juju juice junkies fell over themselves "fact-checking" the highly-accomplished doctor.

    It has become a near perfect heuristic that any “fact check” by Reuters or AP is a lie.

    I mean, you’d think they’d at least pick a few to play it straight every once in a while to mix it up.

    But they don’t, and frankly, the hilarity of it is beginning to beggar belief.





    But some simple truths will always remain:

    • The side seeking to censor debate is never the side of science or of reason.
    • One does not censor information because it is false; one censors it because it is true.
    • You will know what tyrants fear by what they will not allow to be spoken.












    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/fact-checking-is-the-new-propaganda

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,074
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Virtually all the MSM fact checking is nothing more than thinly veiled opinion pieces. One of the major reasons for this is that much of what they fact check isn't quantifiable. An example of this that happens regularly is the fact checker says politician A, whom they dislike and disagree with, is a liar over something they said while politician B whom they like and agree with generally, misspoke or was mistaken with an equally wrong statement.

    Thus, the position of their so-called fact checking is really just them foisting their opinion on something. They can't quantify their position, and there are equally valid counter positions to theirs out there.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to T. A. Gardner For This Post:

    Into the Night (01-10-2022)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,493
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    A complete and obvious abuse and fraud, but look at how many people even this low quality con works on, look at how many people have basically zero idea what is going on.

    Buckle Up, It's all over, the suicide will be successful.
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    8,281
    Thanks
    1,421
    Thanked 2,597 Times in 1,937 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 661 Times in 608 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post


    YouTube has removed an episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” featuring Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine scientist who invented the mRNA technology widely used in the COVID-19 vaccines.

    Dr. Malone said, “Very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad.”

    Dr. Malone chalked up this phenomenon to mass formation psychosis: “When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other, and has free floating anxiety in a sense that things don’t make sense.”

    “We can’t understand it,” he added. “And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere.”

    The juju juice junkies fell over themselves "fact-checking" the highly-accomplished doctor.

    It has become a near perfect heuristic that any “fact check” by Reuters or AP is a lie.

    I mean, you’d think they’d at least pick a few to play it straight every once in a while to mix it up.

    But they don’t, and frankly, the hilarity of it is beginning to beggar belief.





    But some simple truths will always remain:

    • The side seeking to censor debate is never the side of science or of reason.
    • One does not censor information because it is false; one censors it because it is true.
    • You will know what tyrants fear by what they will not allow to be spoken.












    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/fact-checking-is-the-new-propaganda
    The old and menacing propaganda ministry is Faux entertainment bs of misinformation.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Virtually all the MSM fact checking is nothing more than thinly veiled opinion pieces. One of the major reasons for this is that much of what they fact check isn't quantifiable. An example of this that happens regularly is the fact checker says politician A, whom they dislike and disagree with, is a liar over something they said while politician B whom they like and agree with generally, misspoke or was mistaken with an equally wrong statement. Thus, the position of their so-called fact checking is really just them foisting their opinion on something. They can't quantify their position, and there are equally valid counter positions to theirs out there.
    Once again, we can see a blatant and clear example of how the media isn't here to give you the truth on things but is here to sell you an opinion. Senator Tom Cotton was targeted by the Washington Post's "fact-checker" Glenn Kessler, but soon Kessler found himself in hot water.

    In this video, Brandon Morse shows you Kessler's mistake, how he tried to be clever after he was proven wrong, and why this is indicative of a much larger problem.




    https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2022/01/07/heres-proof-the-medias-fact-checkers-are-just-opinion-salesmen-n503218

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,178 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Fact-checking is the sharp-stick up the TRUMPTARD'S LYING ASS!

    They can't handle the truth!

    Let them think whatever they want to think!

    Life is too short to argue with fools!

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,506
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked 9,834 Times in 6,110 Posts
    Groans
    422
    Groaned 710 Times in 658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Umm, how about a real site? I know asking a flaming weenie troll this is like asking a wild animal to shit in a toilet but jeez.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,506
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked 9,834 Times in 6,110 Posts
    Groans
    422
    Groaned 710 Times in 658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Fact-checking is the sharp-stick up the TRUMPTARD'S LYING ASS!

    They can't handle the truth!

    Let them think whatever they want to think!

    Life is too short to argue with fools!
    Here's for fact-checking. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1989552.html

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    11,869
    Thanks
    6,396
    Thanked 4,386 Times in 3,225 Posts
    Groans
    57
    Groaned 189 Times in 178 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Fact-checking is the sharp-stick up the TRUMPTARD'S LYING ASS!

    They can't handle the truth!

    Let them think whatever they want to think!

    Life is too short to argue with fools!
    Then stop arguing with yourself! The difference is we do think, you just hear something spewed by msnbc, and believe it as the gospel!

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default




    Poynter, the "journalism" institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online.

    The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for an organization funded by prominent leftist billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.

    Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”

    Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.”

    That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites — Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.

    These sites were all blacklisted, along with conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented baker Jack Phillips in the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

    The ADF is considered a “hate group” by the SPLC and is marked on their “hate map.”

    Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, (leftist billionaire George Soros’ massive front), as well as the Omidyar Network.

    The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.”

    Funds were sent to Poynter specifically to establish the International Fact-Checking Network.

    The ‘UnNews’ list was started to help fact-checking organizations determine what was “unreliable.”

    That anti-conservative mindset was apparent throughout the incoherent and inconsistent report.

    Conservative organizations were included throughout.

    The National Review and Heritage were removed from the list but Heritage’s Daily Signal was on it.

    That combined to create a shameless double-standard.

    It specifically targeted conservative media watchdog groups and didn’t include leftist ones.

    The goal of the report is clear.

    Poynter is recommending that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list.

    It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete.

    Golding wrote that, “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”

    Poynter has a longstanding history. Its board of trustees includes leftist activists from the failing New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and the Washington Post.

    Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its "fact-checking" programs.

    The announcement mentioned that some leftist sites, while initially on the list, were taken off, including the far left conspiracy site Alternet.

    The report marked conservative sources as “unreliable,” “biased,” “clickbait,” or “fake.”

    Breitbart, Alliance Defending Freedom, CNSNews.com, Project Veritas, and the Washington Examiner were all marked “unreliable.”

    Unreliable was defined as “sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination,” “sites that contain some fake news,” and “sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification.”

    The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LiveAction, MRC, and PJ Media were tagged as “biased.”

    The tag was explained as “sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.”

    LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, RedState, The Blaze, and Twitchy were marked as “clickbait.”

    This tag was defined as “sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, or questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.”

    The list clearly reflects the biases of the organizations that compiled its component parts.

    Poynter listed the organizations that contributed to the dataset in an attached document.

    These included FactCheck.org, Fake News Codex, MetaCert Protocol, OpenSources, Politifact, Snopes, and the disgraced SPLC.

    Ultimately, the list and the agenda showed how far Poynter is from its self-proclaimed role as “the world’s most influential school for journalists” to a far-left censor of conservatives online.



    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/corinne-weaver/2019/05/02/journalism-institute-poynter-tries-blacklist-29

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post


    YouTube has removed an episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” featuring Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine scientist who invented the mRNA technology widely used in the COVID-19 vaccines.

    Dr. Malone said, “Very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad.”

    Dr. Malone chalked up this phenomenon to mass formation psychosis: “When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other, and has free floating anxiety in a sense that things don’t make sense.”

    “We can’t understand it,” he added. “And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere.”

    The juju juice junkies fell over themselves "fact-checking" the highly-accomplished doctor.

    It has become a near perfect heuristic that any “fact check” by Reuters or AP is a lie.

    I mean, you’d think they’d at least pick a few to play it straight every once in a while to mix it up.

    But they don’t, and frankly, the hilarity of it is beginning to beggar belief.





    But some simple truths will always remain:

    • The side seeking to censor debate is never the side of science or of reason.
    • One does not censor information because it is false; one censors it because it is true.
    • You will know what tyrants fear by what they will not allow to be spoken.












    https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/fact-checking-is-the-new-propaganda
    The Department of Approved Truth

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakuda View Post
    The Department of Approved Truth
    It's a time-honored, tried and tested trick of totalitarians.

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    It's a time-honored, tried and tested trick of totalitarians.
    You have to love how the left has appointed itself as the arbiters of what's true and what isn't. They honestly think they are that pure and above reproach and they think we are all stupid enough to believe it.

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakuda View Post
    You have to love how the left has appointed itself as the arbiters of what's true and what isn't. They honestly think they are that pure and above reproach and they think we are all stupid enough to believe it.
    I don't have to love it.

    Labels placed on posts on Facebook accompanying so-called fact-checks are opinion, lawyers for the social media platform’s parent company said in a recent court filing.

    Television host John Stossel sued Facebook and two of its fact-checking partners, Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, earlier this year, accusing the entities of defaming him.

    Stossel posted two video reports on Facebook, one of which explored the forest fires devastating California in 2020, including an interview with Michael Shellenberger, a climate change expert.

    Stossel said that climate change has made things worse in the state; Shellenberger said climate change played a role but that mismanaged forests were the primary reason for the large fires.

    Facebook placed a label over the video, telling users that it was “missing context.”

    If users clicked through, they were met with a page on Climate Feedback’s website that stated “Claim – ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” and “Verdict: misleading.”

    That claim, though, is “contained nowhere in” Stossel’s video, the suit says.

    Stossel said he reached out to Climate Feedback and they didn’t respond, but two of the scientists listed as the group’s reviewers admitted they had not reviewed the video.

    A similar situation played out with a different video, which explored “environmental alarmists.”

    Stossel said the fact-checking process “is nothing more than a pretext used by defendants to defame users with impunity, particularly when defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content.”

    The case was filed in federal court in northern California.

    Lawyers for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, responded in a filing late last month, urging the court to dismiss the case.

    Meta said its fact-checkers are independent from Facebook and that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    “Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice—which, as a public figure, he must,” they wrote.

    “For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile,” they added.

    The claim regarding opinions is key because an opinion is more difficult to press a defamation claim against.

    The case was reassigned this week to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, an Obama nominee.

    Koh is set to hear oral arguments during a hearing on the motion to dismiss in March 2022.

    Stossel is seeking damages of at least $2 million and wants the court to order the defendants to remove the content in question.


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/meta-attorneys-facebook-fact-check-labels-are-opinion_4150624.html

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I don't have to love it.

    Labels placed on posts on Facebook accompanying so-called fact-checks are opinion, lawyers for the social media platform’s parent company said in a recent court filing.

    Television host John Stossel sued Facebook and two of its fact-checking partners, Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, earlier this year, accusing the entities of defaming him.

    Stossel posted two video reports on Facebook, one of which explored the forest fires devastating California in 2020, including an interview with Michael Shellenberger, a climate change expert.

    Stossel said that climate change has made things worse in the state; Shellenberger said climate change played a role but that mismanaged forests were the primary reason for the large fires.

    Facebook placed a label over the video, telling users that it was “missing context.”

    If users clicked through, they were met with a page on Climate Feedback’s website that stated “Claim – ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” and “Verdict: misleading.”

    That claim, though, is “contained nowhere in” Stossel’s video, the suit says.

    Stossel said he reached out to Climate Feedback and they didn’t respond, but two of the scientists listed as the group’s reviewers admitted they had not reviewed the video.

    A similar situation played out with a different video, which explored “environmental alarmists.”

    Stossel said the fact-checking process “is nothing more than a pretext used by defendants to defame users with impunity, particularly when defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content.”

    The case was filed in federal court in northern California.

    Lawyers for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, responded in a filing late last month, urging the court to dismiss the case.

    Meta said its fact-checkers are independent from Facebook and that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    “Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice—which, as a public figure, he must,” they wrote.

    “For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile,” they added.

    The claim regarding opinions is key because an opinion is more difficult to press a defamation claim against.

    The case was reassigned this week to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, an Obama nominee.

    Koh is set to hear oral arguments during a hearing on the motion to dismiss in March 2022.

    Stossel is seeking damages of at least $2 million and wants the court to order the defendants to remove the content in question.


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/meta-attorneys-facebook-fact-check-labels-are-opinion_4150624.html
    They are maggots

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-25-2022, 02:34 AM
  2. Leftist "fact checking"
    By Legion in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2021, 04:27 PM
  3. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 10-30-2020, 08:01 AM
  4. Those "fact-checkers"? They're leftist propaganda shills
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-23-2020, 10:34 AM
  5. Twitter now "fact checking" tRump tweets.
    By Tacomaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-26-2020, 09:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •