Fact Checkers Exposed As Propagators Of Fake News

[patman post]

And why did all the media, except 2, publish the so called "Covid jumping from animals" nonsense?  It wasn't true, so why did these "competing" companies all reach the same false conclusion? [highlight] I would suggest they tend to copy each other, all failed to do any proper journalism or research[/highlight], and all have a financial interest in blaming things like global warming, or eating animals, or in supporting the WHO or Bill Gates, because that's where money and power lies.  But your solution is maybe they don't like money, but have some other agenda to make fake news?

The highlighted comment I won't argue against. I don't know about "Covid jumping from animals" (isn't that still considered likely?), but copying happens — whether because of laziness, pressing deadlines, looming empty space, etc, I don't know. Johnson, when a journalist, was guilty of false reporting and untrue comment. Was it claimed he was paid to do so? If so, would the UK news media have held back?

And I doubt WHO or Bill Gates have paid the news media for favourable editorial coverage or to get their pet hobby-horses covered...

[patman post]

Why are you talking about "agendas"?  Tell me Patman, how many big media companies have ever ignored a request from the guv to censor something, via the D notice?  So if, as you claim, the media are in competition, why do they all obey the guv? 

And why did all the media, except 2, publish the so called "Covid jumping from animals" nonsense?  It wasn't true, so why did these "competing" companies all reach the same false conclusion?  I would suggest they tend to copy each other, all failed to do any proper journalism or research, and all have a financial interest in blaming things like global warming, or eating animals, or in supporting the WHO or Bill Gates, because that's where money and power lies.  But your solution is maybe they don't like money, but have some other agenda to make fake news?

I doubt many (if any) mainstream responsible UK news organisation has ignored specific government request not to publish items from the following five categories:

• Military operations, plans & capabilities
• Nuclear & non-nuclear weapon systems & equipment
• Military counter-terrorist forces, special forces and intelligence agewncy operations, activities and communications methods and techniques
• Personnel who work in sensitive positions and their families

But as the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee says: The system is voluntary, it has no legal authority and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned...
https://www.dsma.uk/standing-notices/

[Borchester]

Why are you talking about "agendas"?  Tell me Patman, how many big media companies have ever ignored a request from the guv to censor something, via the D notice?

Quite a lot actually.

I have led a quiet, blameless life, so my experience of these matters is limited, but as I recall the first impulse of government and media is to do a deal. The reason you get so many stories about Boris being caught drunk and with his trousers down is that the public expects Boris to be caught drunk and with his trousers down. It isn't worth buying the media off in such cases.

The second impulse is how much will it cost. The obverse side of spending a few bob on a court case is the mega publicity generated and increases in circulation.

[Scott777]

D-notices (and their other derivatives) weren't enforceable in 2013 either. They've not been enforceable in lifetime of anybody here.

To actually believe that all the big news media follow the same agenda is risible. You're obviously not looking at a broad range of news media if you think the Guardian, Mirror, Times, Telegraph, etc, aren't in competition, and are dictated to by government as to what they report and how they report it. But news media may accede to request for discretion if, for example, disclosure could hamper Police investigations, military operations, security issues, etc.

Injunctions are granted by a judge. And the government — like wife-cheating footballers and others — can only be granted an injunction against publishing damaging or private information, by a judge...

Why are you talking about "agendas"?  Tell me Patman, how many big media companies have ever ignored a request from the guv to censor something, via the D notice?  So if, as you claim, the media are in competition, why do they all obey the guv? 

And why did all the media, except 2, publish the so called "Covid jumping from animals" nonsense?  It wasn't true, so why did these "competing" companies all reach the same false conclusion?  I would suggest they tend to copy each other, all failed to do any proper journalism or research, and all have a financial interest in blaming things like global warming, or eating animals, or in supporting the WHO or Bill Gates, because that's where money and power lies.  But your solution is maybe they don't like money, but have some other agenda to make fake news?

[Scott777]

You're mixing up statements Scott. I said the website scored very low on the scam website detector site. As for the document, I can see it's been altered by the META DATA that is contained within the document, if you know where to look. Do you have a copy of a statement where the document was officially released, or only the stolen version?

Come on Nick, less of the gaslighting.  I said many times, it wasn't officially released by Pfizer, and must have been altered by Pfizer in order to redact it, prior to submitting it under FOI.  So what does that prove?  And why is this "scam website" any more reliable that any other fact-checker or the professionals who published it at PHMPT?

[patman post]

And that's a reasonable point.  As Chomsky says (and which I also believe to be true), the big media companies are the mouthpiece for the government.  If the guv tell them they should not publish something, they won't, because if they do, there can be consequences.  The point is, it's a mechanism of organising all the media.  Just because ALL the big media follow the same stories, or omission of stories, does not mean it is true.  If there's a common interest, such as supporting the guv, usually for financial gain, then they will all do the same.

"In October 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron made a veiled threat to newspapers over NSA and GCHQ leaks, stating in Parliament that the government might use "injunctions or D-notices or the other tougher measures" to restrain publication of leaked classified information if newspapers did not voluntarily stop publishing them."

D-notices (and their other derivatives) weren't enforceable in 2013 either. They've not been enforceable in lifetime of anybody here.

To actually believe that all the big news media follow the same agenda is risible. You're obviously not looking at a broad range of news media if you think the Guardian, Mirror, Times, Telegraph, etc, aren't in competition, and are dictated to by government as to what they report and how they report it. But news media may accede to request for discretion if, for example, disclosure could hamper Police investigations, military operations, security issues, etc.

Injunctions are granted by a judge. And the government — like wife-cheating footballers and others — can only be granted an injunction against publishing damaging or private information, by a judge...

[Nick]

You said "As for Scam-detector, they get a clean bill of health from every reliable source on the net, unlike PHMPT who look like they are happy to host anything regardless of it's legitimacy."

Altered does not mean fake.  So, how did you establish it was fake?  And how did you establish all these "reliable sources"?  Are they reliable like the Facebook fact-checkers?

You're mixing up statements Scott. I said the website scored very low on the scam website detector site. As for the document, I can see it's been altered by the META DATA that is contained within the document, if you know where to look. Do you have a copy of a statement where the document was officially released, or only the stolen version?

[Scott777]

No I didn't use a website, I used MetaData and the official release dates to show that it had been altered.

You said "As for Scam-detector, they get a clean bill of health from every reliable source on the net, unlike PHMPT who look like they are happy to host anything regardless of it's legitimacy."

Altered does not mean fake.  So, how did you establish it was fake?  And how did you establish all these "reliable sources"?  Are they reliable like the Facebook fact-checkers?

[Nick]

Actually, I'm glad you piped up.  I recall you saying you also used a website to check if the document was genuine, and they said it was not.  So that's basically a fact-checker.  Oh the irony!  🤣

No I didn't use a website, I used MetaData and the official release dates to show that it had been altered.

[Scott777]

How can a "DSMA Notice" be government censorship when D, DA, DSMA notices are not legally enforceable...?

And that's a reasonable point.  As Chomsky says (and which I also believe to be true), the big media companies are the mouthpiece for the government.  If the guv tell them they should not publish something, they won't, because if they do, there can be consequences.  The point is, it's a mechanism of organising all the media.  Just because ALL the big media follow the same stories, or omission of stories, does not mean it is true.  If there's a common interest, such as supporting the guv, usually for financial gain, then they will all do the same.

"In October 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron made a veiled threat to newspapers over NSA and GCHQ leaks, stating in Parliament that the government might use "injunctions or D-notices or the other tougher measures" to restrain publication of leaked classified information if newspapers did not voluntarily stop publishing them."

[patman post]

An example of existing government censorship is the DSMA-Notice. 

How can a "DSMA Notice" be government censorship when D, DA, DSMA notices are not legally enforceable...?

[Scott777]

if you see what the BBC, Sky News, Reuters, Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Telegraph are saying, then you'll have something near to what is perceived as truth.  

You might.  Or might not.  In a scenario where the government is in talks about further restrictions on the media, do you think they are all more likely to heap praise on the efforts, or perhaps all have a biased criticism, with distortion of the truth?  It's quite common for all the media to look at what the others are saying.  An example of existing government censorship is the DSMA-Notice.  Now imagine a scenario where it's discovered that vaccines are very very dangerous (just hypothetical), and the guv decides it would be a security concern if everyone panicked, and they slap a DSMA-Notice to prohibit any mention of it.

[Thomas]

He did manage to persuade me that agnosticism and atheism were in fact every bit as much a leap of faith as belief.

It feels like that was a lifetime ago.

Those were the days when you could have a set of below efs that didn't align with the T**** on the twatterverse and not get letter bombs for it.

two interesting forum members as i recall , particularly dave uk. Enjoyed reading their debates , although half the time didnt have a facking clue what they were going on about.

Dave uk used to rip the religous to shreds as i recall , harry more often than not.

[johnofgwent]

aye i remember dirty harry. Wasnt he the guy uk dave used to have the deep theological discussions with?

He did manage to persuade me that agnosticism and atheism were in fact every bit as much a leap of faith as belief. 

It feels like that was a lifetime ago.

Those were the days when you could have a set of below efs that didn't align with the twats on the twatterverse and not get letter bombs for it.

[Thomas]

He called himself Dirty Harry.....
me and my memory.....again eh.
.

aye i remember dirty harry. Wasnt he the guy uk dave used to have the deep theological discussions with?