Fact Checkers Exposed As Propagators Of Fake News

[HDQQ]

Short of going out 'into the field', using multiple sources is the best way to get close to the truth.  For example, 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.  They're all good at reporting the facts, but they might use the facts differently to suit their editorial bias.

[cromwell]

Remember the British guy, went to America and posted on the old forum, with Clint Eastwood as his avatar?
He often used the word "axiom", well, these days there are no axioms, because as I keep saying, we live in a post truth society.

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

Nothing can be trusted, except Daily Telegraph eye witness reporters at Parisian football games.

.

[Scott777]

That's cause it was stolen and altered, we did this conversation last Christmas and you still haven't post a link to where Pfizer officially issued the document. That's why nobody believes it.

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!  🤣

[Scott777]

That's cause it was stolen and altered, we did this conversation last Christmas and you still haven't post a link to where Pfizer officially issued the document. That's why nobody believes it.

Pfizer did not officially release it, Nick, as explained before.  But you entirely missed the point of my question to Cromwell.  The website is a source credited by many qualified people, maybe over 1000 of them, perhaps the most prominent being Prof. Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.  He says the document is genuine.  You thought it was not because it was modified, and then I pointed out it was redacted, so obviously would have been modified by Pfizer or the FDA.  So how do you decide what is a credible source and what isn't?  That is my point to Cromwell.

[Nick]

Literally speaking, I agree.  Although I am curious if you include a website like "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency" in your "as many different sources as they can".  It's a collective of many MDs and PhDs, who still have published the Pfizer documents of deaths and adverse events, which no one seems to believe.

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

That's cause it was stolen and altered, we did this conversation last Christmas and you still haven't post a link to where Pfizer officially issued the document. That's why nobody believes it. 

[Scott777]

people should look at as many different sources as they can and form their own conclusions.

Literally speaking, I agree.  Although I am curious if you include a website like "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency" in your "as many different sources as they can".  It's a collective of many MDs and PhDs, who still have published the Pfizer documents of deaths and adverse events, which no one seems to believe.

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

[Barry]

I think the only salient point here from that lotus eaters podcast which I'm sure i watched ages ago is that facebook have been forced to admit their "fact checkers", far from actually checking facts, are merely expressing an opinion as to the truth or falsehood of statements "checked" after someone threatened to drag zuckerberg into court ove r their antics.

Remember the British guy, went to America and posted on the old forum, with Clint Eastwood as his avatar?
He often used the word "axiom", well, these days there are no axioms, because as I keep saying, we live in a post truth society.
Nothing can be trusted, except Daily Telegraph eye witness reporters at Parisian football games.

[johnofgwent]

USA Today, which Facebook has used as "fact checkers", has been exposed making lots of fake news.

I think the only salient point here from that lotus eaters podcast which I'm sure i watched ages ago is that facebook have been forced to admit their "fact checkers", far from actually checking facts, are merely expressing an opinion as to the truth or falsehood of statements "checked" after someone threatened to drag zuckerberg into court ove r their antics.

[cromwell]

USA Today is a popular newspaper with radio and TV channels pitched somewhere between the UK's Mail (with i-style short items) and Daily Sport, and displaying similar attitudes to the full truth.

Personally, as someone who has access to almost all printed national, important regional, and several US and overseas news carriers, I would not usually fact-check anything in USA Today...

PS — which explains why I cannot understand the reliance on the Daily Mail as a credible source of info that some posters on here display...

No what explains the Daily Mail as use as a source is it's one of the few without a paywall,and people should look at as many different sources as they can and form their own conclusions.

[Scott777]

The Sun has the same story and pictures on the same date (12 April 2020)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11381107/us-government-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-bats/

But was the story true...?

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/fact-check-trump-spreads-distorted-claim-on-wuhan-lab-funding/2234179/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-wuhan-lab-tweet/

Both your links are from 2020, and seem to be about funding, not the lab leak.  Since then, the consensus is that Covid came from a lab.  So the Mail is now highly likely to be the first big paper to publish the truth of the origin.

[patman post]

The Sun has the same story and pictures on the same date (12 April 2020)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11381107/us-government-wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-bats/

But was the story true...?

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/fact-check-trump-spreads-distorted-claim-on-wuhan-lab-funding/2234179/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-wuhan-lab-tweet/

[Scott777]

which explains why I cannot understand the reliance on the Daily Mail as a credible source of info that some posters on here display...

Everything should be taken with a pinch of salt.  If I recall correctly, it was the Daily Mail who first reported the Covid lab leak, while everyone else got it wrong.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html?fbclid=IwAR07XZtycyXrGNqSE5yu6OwKazIQKoTCPyt3q5yGiTR-0Zzjo8vXEABg67M

[Scott777]

So what ?

But when all these 'important, truthful, established' media tell the same lie, then people do fall for it.

[Borchester]

USA Today, which Facebook has used as "fact checkers", has been exposed making lots of fake news.

Obviously, we should still trust their news, because they have lots of money and make nice shiny programs, with presenters who do a serious voice  are so professional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9elkMHLBgY

So what ?

The only news we are getting is Russian/Ukrainian soldiers bombing Russian/Ukrainian orphanages and Russian/Ukrainian grannies taking on Russian/Ukrainian tanks with petrol bombs.

Oh, and nearly two years ago the prime minister had a pint at Christmas.

To my way of thinking, anyone who believes the media really needs to get out more.

[patman post]

USA Today is a popular newspaper with radio and TV channels pitched somewhere between the UK's Mail (with i-style short items) and Daily Sport, and displaying similar attitudes to the full truth.

Personally, as someone who has access to almost all printed national, important regional, and several US and overseas news carriers, I would not usually fact-check anything in USA Today...

PS — which explains why I cannot understand the reliance on the Daily Mail as a credible source of info that some posters on here display...