Monday, September 26, 2016

This is my shocked face . . .

Zero Hedge did a useful analysis of Politifact - one of the so-called 'fact checkers' analyzing claims by candidates in the current election cycle - and how it rated people on the left and the right.  Turns out its ratings aren't exactly honest, and use different 'facts' depending on whose claims it was analyzing.  The author concluded:  "We rate Politifact's fact-checking Mostly Biased."

This is hardly surprising, of course.  Many 'fact checking' organizations are, in fact, run by extremely biased parent organizations, and have individuals working for them who aren't exactly neutral.  My only surprise is that people give them any credit at all.  I rather suspect that the mainstream media find it convenient to have their propaganda duly anointed by such organizations, to help them evade accusations of bias.  (Politifact is, in fact, run by the Tampa Bay Times.  In effect, it's journalists fact-checking journalists.  Conflict of interest, anyone?)

As Juvenal put it in the days of Ancient Rome:  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


1 comment:

Bob Mueller said...

I've long felt that relying on any one fact-checker is asking to get caught by a falsehood.

What I've also noticed is that people tend to discount PF, or Snopes, or whatever site just on name alone. I look at them all as I do Wikipedia: a starting point to do further research from. Snopes has been very good about listing their sources, and Politifact seems to as well.