Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?
CNN and MSNBC are both masters at using a cherry picked set of facts to support a narrative. Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent.
Using a very limited set of facts to support your position is called confirmation bias. People introducing additional facts to question the narrative are simply labeled "fake news". "Conspiracy theorist" is a bit dated, but that was the line pushed from the 60s or so. The people exposing CIA operations were labeled, yet we found through more facts tha
"CNN and MSNBC are both masters at using a cherry picked set of facts to support a narrative. Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent."
Bullshit Mountain called. Fox News wants to know how much you charge for rimjobs.
"Conspiracies are relatively common, yet the media has demonized the term so that people can't talk about them."
This is because the vast majority of them are patently false, and there is a correlation between belief in conspiracy theories and general hatred of groups trying
I never exonerated any media outlet, you invented a narrative. As to the extent I pointed out, Fox at least presents Democrats (not just moderates but the extreme leftists) and their supporters. The two worst don't bother with any discussion that does not suite their narrative.
When you come out of your fantasy land about statements I never made, how about you let us know a reasonable number of true conspiracies that you would support being talked about. Until Snowden, we had plenty of theories about Government spying on us but Snowden was proof. Until Comey came out and said that there in fact were classified emails on Hillary's server, it was conspiracy. Until it was released that Rice was unmasking people, perhaps illegally, it was right wing conspiracy.
What is the number you find acceptable to discuss? Or it it simply "shut up and believe everything you are told" in your world view?
The number of "wrong" does not in any way nullify the need to find the truths in the world. If you are content believing everything your Government and sponsored media tells you, you are as well off in China or Russia as here in the US. Please move at your earliest convenience.
Who decides what is fact? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Who decides what is fact? (Score:5, Informative)
You can use many truths to draw a false conclusion. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
Bidirectional problem (Score:3, Insightful)
CNN and MSNBC are both masters at using a cherry picked set of facts to support a narrative. Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent.
Using a very limited set of facts to support your position is called confirmation bias. People introducing additional facts to question the narrative are simply labeled "fake news". "Conspiracy theorist" is a bit dated, but that was the line pushed from the 60s or so. The people exposing CIA operations were labeled, yet we found through more facts tha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"CNN and MSNBC are both masters at using a cherry picked set of facts to support a narrative. Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent."
Bullshit Mountain called. Fox News wants to know how much you charge for rimjobs.
"Conspiracies are relatively common, yet the media has demonized the term so that people can't talk about them."
This is because the vast majority of them are patently false, and there is a correlation between belief in conspiracy theories and general hatred of groups trying
Re:Bidirectional problem (Score:3)
I never exonerated any media outlet, you invented a narrative. As to the extent I pointed out, Fox at least presents Democrats (not just moderates but the extreme leftists) and their supporters. The two worst don't bother with any discussion that does not suite their narrative.
When you come out of your fantasy land about statements I never made, how about you let us know a reasonable number of true conspiracies that you would support being talked about. Until Snowden, we had plenty of theories about Government spying on us but Snowden was proof. Until Comey came out and said that there in fact were classified emails on Hillary's server, it was conspiracy. Until it was released that Rice was unmasking people, perhaps illegally, it was right wing conspiracy.
What is the number you find acceptable to discuss? Or it it simply "shut up and believe everything you are told" in your world view?
The number of "wrong" does not in any way nullify the need to find the truths in the world. If you are content believing everything your Government and sponsored media tells you, you are as well off in China or Russia as here in the US. Please move at your earliest convenience.