News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Who Fact-Checks the Fact-Checkers? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Who Fact-Checks the Fact-Checkers? Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 13,044
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 12 January 2019 - 10:29 AM

Who Fact-Checks the Fact-Checkers?

By Brian C. Joondeph
January 12, 2019


American media have abandoned their primary job of reporting the news. Gone are the days of telling readers and viewers the who, what, where, when, and why. Now it's telling the audience what to think, after filtering the news story through layers of bias and activism.

The latest trick is "fact-checking" President Trump in "real time." I don't recall any mainstream news networks fact-checking Barack Obama. In anticipation of Trump's first Oval Office address, and immediately following, the anti-Trump resistance media went into fact-check mode.

There was this CNN headline: "Fact-checking Trump's immigration speech."

NPR jumped in with "FACT CHECK: Trump's Oval Office Pitch for A Border Wall," followed by the New York Times: "Trump's Speech to the Nation: Fact Checks and Background." And then Politico: "Fact check: Trump's speech on border crisis."

A CNN crank even encouraged fact-checkers to prepare for Trump's eight-minute speech as they would for a triathlon, with proper nutrition and rest.

It's as though all the major media organizations read from the same playbook. Perhaps they do. A few years ago, "[a]n off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList" was revealed. The same sort of thing likely still does exist in some other name or form, allowing such immediate coordinated attacks by news organization that are ostensibly in competition with each other. Yet their reporting and headlines are so coordinated as to suggest a form of collusion or conspiracy. Maybe Robert Mueller can investigate this.

Some degree of fact-checking is reasonable, if it's applied equally to leaders of both political parties, but not when it becomes the entire story. Before President Trump even uttered a word, the fact-checkers were lined up, ready to provide real-time rebuttals to every word Trump uttered.

But who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Why are we supposed to believe CNN or MSNBC and their supposed fact-checkers? These are the same media organizations that ignored the blatant lies about the Benghazi video or "hands up, don't shoot." They refused to fact-check "if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep them." They doctored George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound like a racist.

There are myriad stories of fake news, enough for President Trump to create a top-ten list and give an award for the worst of the stories. Even then, the Washington Post couldn't resist "Fact-checking President Trump's Fake News Awards." What happens when even fact-checking is fake news?

Let's look at a few of many examples.

CNN tweeted after Trump's address, "Fact check: President Trump misleadingly claims drugs will kill more Americans than the Vietnam War." Time to fact-check the fact-checkers.

According to the National Archives, there were "58,220 US military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War." The Centers for Disease Control reports approximately 70,000 deaths in 2017 in the U.S. from drug overdoses. The Vietnam War is said to have lasted from 1955 to 1975, or 20 years. This translates to an annualized 3,000 deaths per year in Viet Nam, less than 5 percent of the number of drug overdose deaths per year.

Who is misleading? Obviously, CNN reporters are unable to perform simple research or do basic arithmetic.

Full Story

This post has been edited by pepperonikkid: 12 January 2019 - 10:31 AM


#2 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 25,997
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 12 January 2019 - 10:32 AM


#3 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,876
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 12 January 2019 - 12:05 PM

View Postpepperonikkid, on 12 January 2019 - 10:29 AM, said:

Who Fact-Checks the Fact-Checkers?

I do.

And so should you.

As so should EVERYBODY.

#4 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,231
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 12 January 2019 - 12:32 PM


The "news" has always been this way. It's nothing but scripted manipulative propaganda disguised as "news" for the sole purpose to manipulate, mislead, control and exploit the people.

Now they don't even try to hide it anymore.

It's like rat poison.
80% food and 20% poison.
Mix the poison with enough food to get the rats to accept and consume the poison then it kills them as intended.

They used to tell enough truth to get everyone to accept their lies for the purpose of manipulation and control over the gullible masses, but now they outright lie more than they tell the truth anymore.

This is because these manipulative liars have also dumbed down just like everyone else due to their own progressivism. Now they aren't even smart or talented enough to keep on mesmerizing people with their poison propaganda because they are just too stupid to do so.

Progressivism is like a disease or a parasite that eventually kills the host so it will die too.

We are witnessing the beginning of the death of progressivism and it's control over the gullible masses.

#5 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,960
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 12 January 2019 - 01:27 PM

Meh...silly “facts” no longer matter in the post modern world.

#6 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,365
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 12 January 2019 - 05:57 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 12 January 2019 - 12:05 PM, said:

I do.

And so should you.

As so should EVERYBODY.

We all do that here on little RN. It may not seem like a lot but it’s like that little butterfly that flaps its wings and causes a chain reaction.... there are often (or at least sometimes) a lot more visitors here than posters...

#7 User is offline   Gertie Keddle 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum
  • Posts: 21,471
  • Joined: 12-August 03

Posted 13 January 2019 - 10:19 AM

Wet Streets Cause Rain: Michael Crichton on the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

Calhoun Press

Have you ever read an article about a topic you know well, and found that the writer got everything wrong? Not just little things, but basic things, like the decade that Kate Bush released her first album, or the sport that Joe Montana played professionally. And did you then turn to another section and read about something you don't know well, such as foreign policy or the economy or domestic politics, and take that story more or less at face value?

If you have, then you've experienced the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. The term was coined by Michael Crighton in his 2005 essay "Why Speculate?" From the essay:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward––reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.


Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users