If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Reuters fact-checkers fact-checks fact-checkers fact-checking fact-checkers   (reuters.com) divider line 71
    More: Obvious, Reuters, Brendan Nyhan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, journalistic standards, Glenn Kessler, exaggerations, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

7534 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2012 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-16 08:29:47 AM
Inception!
 
2012-10-16 09:16:34 AM
xzibit.jpg
 
2012-10-16 09:19:14 AM
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMM
 
2012-10-16 09:19:38 AM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-10-16 09:20:04 AM
Buffalo.
 
2012-10-16 09:22:52 AM
Reuters Libfact™-checkers Libfact™-checks Libfact™-checkers Libfact™-checking Libfact™-checkers

/because, yanno, Reuters being part of the Soros-Owned Palace Guard LameScream SOPGLSM Media and all
 
2012-10-16 09:23:24 AM
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
 
2012-10-16 09:24:20 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Buffalo.


Damn you.
 
2012-10-16 09:26:00 AM
With all due respect, that article was a bunch of malarkey...
 
2012-10-16 09:27:15 AM
But who checks the fact-checking, fact checker, checkers?!?
 
2012-10-16 09:29:08 AM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

/I WILL!
 
2012-10-16 09:31:33 AM
Marklar?
 
2012-10-16 09:31:41 AM

EZ Writer: With all due respect, that article was a bunch of malarkey...


I think this statement is false.
 
2012-10-16 09:32:20 AM
A moose once bit my sister

/no umlaut skills
 
2012-10-16 09:37:47 AM
Reality is veiwed with the lense of perception and everyone perceives the world differently. Combine that with lawyers, accountants, economists and other experts/spin meisters and it seems everybody is entitled to their own facts.

To me, this race boils down to two different plans - one to build the country from the ground up, and another to build the country from the top down. To use an architecture analogy; I favor the plan that strengthens the foundation rather than gilds the spire.
 
2012-10-16 09:38:39 AM
I can really empathize with voter apathy down in the US. You guys must be completely sick & tired of this sh*t right now.
You have my sympathies.
 
2012-10-16 09:38:54 AM
"People get hung up on the true/false thing," said Nyhan, a former fact-checker himself. "It gets away from the core issue, which is whether something is a responsible claim to make in public life or not."

F#ck you, F#ck you, F#ck you. It is a true or false thing.
 
2012-10-16 09:39:38 AM
You can't win whack-a-mole against a lie machine.
Chasing each lie and each framing of each lie is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
But if you provide factual context for an entire issue, future lies on that topic are already taken care of.

If someone says "you cut 700B from Medicare", the right way to 'fact check' that statement is to provide factual context for the issue.
Identify what Medicare's situation was, what the proposals were, where savings came from, who's for a given reform and who's against, etc.
It would be rather like keeping a running wiki on political issues.

But, of course, that's bad for ratings/clicks.
"Fact-checking" has taken off exactly *because* the format delivers no definitive information, stirs just as much controversy and enjoys a never-ending supply of source material.
 
2012-10-16 09:40:00 AM
How many facts can a fact checker check, if a fact checker could check facts?
 
2012-10-16 09:40:40 AM
If you could check a fact checker, how many facts would the fact checker check?
 
2012-10-16 09:41:24 AM
You beat me to it julieahni
 
2012-10-16 09:41:25 AM
blogs.attask.com

And now, folks, it's time for "Who do you trust!" Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Who do you trust?
 
2012-10-16 09:43:01 AM
So, I guess Biden's claim to have voted against two wars when he voted for them is too petty to get mentioned but some obscure comment about hands over hearts gets a mention.
 
2012-10-16 09:44:00 AM

spelletrader: But who checks the fact-checking, fact checker, checkers?!?


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-16 09:44:17 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: "People get hung up on the true/false thing," said Nyhan, a former fact-checker himself. "It gets away from the core issue, which is whether something is a responsible claim to make in public life or not."

F#ck you, F#ck you, F#ck you. It is a true or false thing.


No, in the strictest sense it is not true or false.
Its either factual, or wrong. True or false IS perception. Whether something is real or not is whether its factual or not.
You are right though. The dude who said that can screw himself. The core issue is whether or not the words issuing forth from the candidates is something that is real, factual, and correct, or something that is fake, wrong, or a lie.

The highlighted is a terrible statement, unless you define it as: a responsible claim == a fact.
fark, at this point I will take mostly even.
/would never have bet I would long for the days when politicians merely twisted or stretched the truth a bit
//This post-factual campaign shiat needs to END
 
2012-10-16 09:44:32 AM
The terminology differs from fact-checker to fact-checker. But the reality is that the vast majority of claims fact-checkers put under scrutiny are deemed to be partly true or partly false but rarely completely one or the other.

The triumph of the neither wholly true nor wholly false partly reflects the complexity of the issues. But credit mostly goes to obfuscation by the campaigns.


It is also because the press doesn't have the guts to call "bullshiat" when something is total bullshiat out of fear of being called "biased". So the press obfuscates the issues themselves as a way to pander but still appear to be doing their job because it is more about ratings than the truth.
 
2012-10-16 09:44:37 AM

spelletrader: But who checks the fact-checking, fact checker, checkers?!?


I dunno. The Coast Guard?
 
2012-10-16 09:47:10 AM

ringersol: the right way to 'fact check' that statement is to provide factual context for the issue.
Identify what Medicare's situation was, what the proposals were, where savings came from, who's for a given reform and who's against, etc.
It would be rather like keeping a running wiki on political issues.

But, of course, that's bad for ratings/clicks.
"Fact-checking" has taken off exactly *because* the format delivers no definitive information, stirs just as much controversy and enjoys a never-ending supply of source material.



I don't know what fact-checking you're checking, but the fact-checking that I'm checking often describes those "situations, proposals, savings, etc" that you say is missing.
 
2012-10-16 09:47:31 AM
No wonder there's nobody left to fact-check Fox News. The fact-checkers are all fact-checking each other.
 
2012-10-16 09:48:38 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Your "facts" have been checked, mate.
 
2012-10-16 09:49:33 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: "People get hung up on the true/false thing," said Nyhan, a former fact-checker himself. "It gets away from the core issue, which is whether something is a responsible claim to make in public life or not."

F#ck you, F#ck you, F#ck you. It is a true or false thing.


i didn't read the article, but I doubt it's ever as clear as true or false. say the statement is: you destroyed the automotive industry by bailing out X company.

here are the true/false parts: did you bail out company X?

here are the not quite true or false parts: is the automotive industry destroyed? if so, was the bail out the cause? were there other, intervening causes? etc.

these issues can't be answered by a simple true or false classification. destruction needs to be defined, so that it can be quantified. the other causes need to be addressed so they can be given their quantifiable merit. and then, once you have an answer, you can't really say more than that the original statement has merit and could be true, or the original statement has no merit and is very unlikely to be true.
 
2012-10-16 09:49:38 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: "People get hung up on the true/false thing," said Nyhan, a former fact-checker himself. "It gets away from the core issue, which is whether something is a responsible claim to make in public life or not."

F#ck you, F#ck you, F#ck you. It is a true or false thing.


Yep. Contrary to what the article would suggest, there's no such thing as "somewhere in between". True or false; honest or a lie. A lengthy statement can have elements which are true and others which are false, but the statement as a whole can only be judged by its lowest common denominator. It's impossible to elect an honest politician in a society which places so little value in honesty. Or one which is quite often hostile toward it.

/Never vote for someone who actually wants the job.
 
2012-10-16 09:49:41 AM
I don't even read the fact-checkers' opinions. I don't need to. Everyone knows that all politicians stretch the truth to support their positions. If it seems to good to be true, it isn't so good and v/v.
 
2012-10-16 09:50:28 AM
"Fact checker" was just another way to insert spin.

90% of the media leans left.

Liberalism is a mental disorder spread through misery.
 
2012-10-16 09:51:20 AM

tommyl66: spelletrader: But who checks the fact-checking, fact checker, checkers?!?

I dunno. The Coast Guard?


'bout time those lazy farks did something.
 
2012-10-16 09:54:22 AM
Embden.Meyerhof: " the fact-checking that I'm checking often describes those "situations, proposals, savings, etc" that you say is missing."

They describe that stuff in passing and spend their time quibbling over subjective interpretations of data. e.g. what portion of the federal deficit 'fair' to blame on Obama. what start and stop dates are 'fair' for framing government growth/spending/etc.

What you would want to do is step back and say "they're talking about the deficit? Here's the deficit. Here's where it came from. Here's what Obama did. Here's the deficit with/without what Obama did, Here's what Obama proposed additionally. Here's how that applies to the deficit. etc."

Trying to attribute "pinnochios" based on whether it was 'fair' to start the context of a claim about spending in January vs April is not the same thing.
Not even if you give lip service to the source of the deficit for a paragraph or two.
 
2012-10-16 10:04:24 AM
If you state something as true in debates and it's "partly true" and "partly false", you have to know that. So you are lying, and hoping people don't pick up on the false part.

Lying.
 
2012-10-16 10:05:27 AM

thnksqrd: custodiet?

/I WILL!


MMMmmmmmm Custard Diet.....
 
2012-10-16 10:08:16 AM
Do you still beat your wife?
 
2012-10-16 10:11:06 AM
Who cares about facts? I want proof!
 
2012-10-16 10:11:12 AM
Politicians discovered if you make a vague enough statement about a complex enough problem no one will be able to prove what you said is a lie.

Does anyone really think it is a surprised Romney doesn't want to go into any details about his tax plan?
 
2012-10-16 10:17:09 AM
From the WSJ last week:

New York Times columnist Charles Blow has an especially funny example of a "fact check":

...as part of the new "moderate Mitt" offensive, Romney told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday that

"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."

What kind of wishy-washy, sidewinder statement is that? Do you even know what a simple, declarative statement is Mr. Romney? Did no one teach you that at your fancy boarding school?

Not only is the statement squishy, but, based on Romney's previously stated positions, it's a lie. As Planned Parenthood Action Fund pointed out:

"Let's be clear: Mitt Romney wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, end federal funding for Planned Parenthood's preventive services, end insurance coverage for birth control, and repeal health protections for women."


Even if you stipulate that the Planned Parenthood Action Fund claims about Romney's previous positions are true, they don't actually contradict Romney's statement. Reversing Roe v. Wade would be a judicial action, not a legislative one. Neither "birth control" nor "health protections" is the same as abortion (and ObamaCare supporters claim that it does not cover abortion).

Would an end to "federal funding for Planned Parenthood's preventive services" be "legislation with regards to abortion"? Only if, as Planned Parenthood has taken great pains to deny, the organization is in fact an abortion mill.



/Fact-checkers = Opinionated bloviators masquerading as journalists
 
2012-10-16 10:23:52 AM
www.simplysyndicated.com

Approves.

May I just say, I am proud of all of you for ignoring a certain new troll alt who has graced severeal threads with his schtick with nary a response. Look at us, we're growing!
 
2012-10-16 10:28:03 AM

Mr. Ekshun: It's impossible to elect an honest politician in a society which places so little value in honesty. Or one which is quite often hostile toward it.


We want the appearance of goodness, not the goodness itself.
 
2012-10-16 10:33:25 AM

The Envoy: [www.simplysyndicated.com image 300x224]

Approves.

May I just say, I am proud of all of you for ignoring a certain new troll alt who has graced severeal threads with his schtick with nary a response. Look at us, we're growing!


What new troll?
 
2012-10-16 10:38:28 AM
So let me make a theory: "All politicians are cheats and liars."

Can we all (right, left, communist, moral majority, green, libertarian, librarian.... everyone) agree that this is indeed true?
 
2012-10-16 10:40:38 AM

Julieahni: How many facts can a fact checker check, if a fact checker could check facts?


As many facts as a check faxer can fax.
 
2012-10-16 10:42:29 AM

bgddy24601: A moose once bit my sister

/no umlaut skills


Those responsible for firing the fact-checkers have been fact-checked?

/Incidentally, I know how to do umlauts on my phone, but not on my computer
//not without opening up Word and copy-pasting, anyway.
 
2012-10-16 10:54:35 AM
Facts don't matter once people have made up their minds.
 
2012-10-16 10:56:49 AM

Kit Fister: What new troll?


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report