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
"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,"
With the revelations that many more 'conspiracy theories' are indeed true than previously hoped for, that paradigm is collapsing. Indeed, the tool used now is more and more the 'big lie'. Tell the biggest whopper as often as you can for as long as you can, and when the truth comes out, everyone is either desensitized to the truth and di
Chemtrails, aliens, truthers, reptilians in the White House, the list goes on and they're all bullshit, even the last one. Just because the government really was spying on you does not suddenly mean the others were true all along, but too many people believe what they want to believe regardless of lack of evidence, or even evidence against it.
While the rest of us will stick to Occam's Razor, and keep assuming that wildly-unlikely stuff is almost certainly just more bullshit - unless and until someone produces extraordinary evidence - highlighting fact-checker sites can only help to stem the spread of the bullshit in the first place. So long as the fact-checkers highlighted always clearly show their own sources.
Checking sources can be fatiguing, but it's necessary for the important stuff, even for outlets you otherwise trust - and particularly for non-mainstream or contraversial sources. When you stop doing that, and start blindly accepting stories from *any* source - you'll quickly drown in the bullshit.
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: (Score:2)
"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,"
With the revelations that many more 'conspiracy theories' are indeed true than previously hoped for, that paradigm is collapsing. Indeed, the tool used now is more and more the 'big lie'. Tell the biggest whopper as often as you can for as long as you can, and when the truth comes out, everyone is either desensitized to the truth and di
Re:Bidirectional problem (Score:2)
Chemtrails, aliens, truthers, reptilians in the White House, the list goes on and they're all bullshit, even the last one. Just because the government really was spying on you does not suddenly mean the others were true all along, but too many people believe what they want to believe regardless of lack of evidence, or even evidence against it.
While the rest of us will stick to Occam's Razor, and keep assuming that wildly-unlikely stuff is almost certainly just more bullshit - unless and until someone produces extraordinary evidence - highlighting fact-checker sites can only help to stem the spread of the bullshit in the first place. So long as the fact-checkers highlighted always clearly show their own sources.
Checking sources can be fatiguing, but it's necessary for the important stuff, even for outlets you otherwise trust - and particularly for non-mainstream or contraversial sources. When you stop doing that, and start blindly accepting stories from *any* source - you'll quickly drown in the bullshit.