"Fact checkers"

#27
#27
hog88 said:
Is it any less legitimate than any of our network or broadcast, print news media?
Click to expand...
Yes. And it's not close. First example is they are actually owned by the Government. Ours is ****. But him pretending like he doesn't give those type of media outlets the time of day, while routinely posting articles from RT, is laughable.
 
#28
#28
AshG said:
What would a neutral fact check statement look like to you?
Click to expand...
Well, what makes them biased is they only work one side of the aisle. They also take things out of context and call them lies. In Trump's case, however, they hung on every literal word that guy said. Obviously, the guy was boastful and bragged a lot. But they really went over the top on a lot of his boasts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG and AM64
#29
#29
Like everyone can understand that the video of him checking his watch is being shared as if it were during the ceremony, and everyone can understand that it wasn't from during the ceremony...but the difference is that some people are like "f*** it, it's close enough since he was reportedly also doing it during the ceremony"?

I'll never understand that. If the video is presented as being during the ceremony, and it's not, then the fact that you vaguely think something similar happened during the ceremony isn't a reason to side with the people lying about the video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#30
#30
volfanhill said:
Yes. And it's not close. First example is they are actually owned by the Government. Ours is ****. But him pretending like he doesn't give those type of media outlets the time of day, while routinely posting articles from RT, is laughable.
Click to expand...

Ours isn’t ”owned” by the government?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#33
#33
joevol33 said:
But your side believed every hearsay there was about trump? 🤣 I'm with Slice, I believe the family. It's like the media trying to say the people left behind in Afghanistan"wanted to stay", and I bet you buy that. While there are reports of people begging for help.
Click to expand...
Here is how the "fact checkers" operate. If they actually had full video of the situation and counted the number of times Biden looked at his watch, they would say, "Biden only looked at his watch 10 times, not 13... debunked"

In other words, they are petty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 0nelilreb, hog88 and 2 others
#34
#34
NashVol11 said:
Fact-checkers weren't checking whether "the timing was disrespectful", but rather whether the video making the rounds showed him checking his watch as bodies came out, which it did not.
Click to expand...
Does it make everything better if Biden only looked at his watch 5 times?

Also, do you think the people were lying when they said 13 times or do you think they would have been better served saying "about 10 times"?

I guess I'm trying to understand how a grieving family member would have been at that moment. I'm sure they didn't have a counter on them and was making a mental note after each time he looked down. Mental notes under those situations I'm sure can be in error given the circumstances.
 
#36
#36
volfanhill said:
Yes. And it's not close. First example is they are actually owned by the Government. Ours is ****. But him pretending like he doesn't give those type of media outlets the time of day, while routinely posting articles from RT, is laughable.
Click to expand...
So at least they’re employees instead of unpaid shills?

That one was too easy you teed it up 😎
 
#37
#37
NorthDallas40 said:
So at least they’re employees instead of unpaid shills?

That one was too easy you teed it up 😎
Click to expand...

I dare say corporate media is even worse as they lie about being impartial. Govt controlled media is like a Psaki
 
#38
#38
Rasputin_Vol said:
Does it make everything better if Biden only looked at his watch 5 times?

Also, do you think the people were lying when they said 13 times or do you think they would have been better served saying "about 10 times"?

I guess I'm trying to understand how a grieving family member would have been at that moment. I'm sure they didn't have a counter on them and was making a mental note after each time he looked down. Mental notes under those situations I'm sure can be in error given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? There was a video of Biden being shared as if he were checking his watch as bodies were unloaded, but the video turned out to be from after the ceremony.

To the question of whether the video was a video of Biden during the ceremony, Snopes described it as a "mixture" of true and false, because the video wasn't from the ceremony but there were people who claimed he was doing it then as well. How are you saying they should have described it differently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#43
#43
@Rasputin_Vol Maybe it's that I'm up way past my bedtime, but I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from on this.

And as I think through the news reporting cycle, from primary data collection to point of contact with the public, I think of who has the real final say on all of this: Editors.

I used to be the content editor for a website with several million hits per day and tens of thousands of forum members: RootzWiki. This was back in 2011-2013, before I lost my leg and the owners sold the site for a quick buck. If something was posted as news, it had my fingerprint on it. I took really solid writing from my team and gave it a little spit and polish. You wouldn't be surprised how the even just right story title affected hit metrics.

Long story made bearable: fact checkers just check the facts the editors tell them to check. The editors are responsible for the jacked-up crap that makes it out of the news room and into the hands of the public. Some underpaid kid fresh out of college journalism school probably had to watch the video 400 times and send the editor an email that consisted of a single sentence: I saw it happen X times. The rest was up to the editor.

But you know what? It all sucks. I wouldn't want to be part of that at all. To have my one sentence email to the editor turn into a page designed to piss off a certain demographic.
 
#44
#44
NashVol11 said:
Fact-checkers weren't checking whether "the timing was disrespectful", but rather whether the video making the rounds showed him checking his watch as bodies came out, which it did not.
Click to expand...
So trying to spin a horrible **** up for Biden with irrelevant distraction.
Thanks for being part of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and InVOLuntary
#45
#45
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here is how the "fact checkers" operate. If they actually had full video of the situation and counted the number of times Biden looked at his watch, they would say, "Biden only looked at his watch 10 times, not 13... debunked"

In other words, they are petty.
Click to expand...
Stinking shocks of human filth in this situation
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and InVOLuntary
#46
#46
Why would anyone care what “fact checkers” have to say? They have absolutely 0 authority over truth.
Also, people these days are only going to believe something if it already matches with their beliefs.
 
#47
#47
I'm constantly being told here that feelings are irrelevant and stick to the facts.

Now we have a thread where verification of facts are being drug through the mud because of how they make certain people feel.

Maybe I'll figure it out one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and n_huffhines
#48
#48
He caused the situation. He should be able to Show some respect..!!

He should have got down on his knees and begged the Gold Star families for forgiveness..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and StarRaider
#50
#50
NashVol11 said:
Fact-checkers weren't checking whether "the timing was disrespectful", but rather whether the video making the rounds showed him checking his watch as bodies came out, which it did not.
Click to expand...

I believe the point is that they are fact checking the claims of the Gold Star families - point being why fact check the bereaved.

The video was the tool they used to do the fact check and as Snopes acknowledged it's not an effective tool for fact checking the claims.

And it turns out the USA Today fact check was wrong - they had to issue a correction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top