Proof that Snopes and AP have no Business being being "Fact Checkers"

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Outlier13
Wikipedia needs to be added to the list of false fact checking mechanisms. Go visit any Wikipedia page that deals with anything not left oriented and you will find false information and false narratives made by the liberal shills who now run Wikipedia.

So you believe/trust that the left-leaning wiki-pages are accurate?

Are you having a difficult time comprehending my secret message in my literal statement?

a reply to: Skyfloating

The problem with "fact checkers" is, who is checking on them? Snopes alone is so ridiculously biased, it's astounding that anyone thinks they are posting "facts".

a reply to: Skyfloating

The last I checked Snopes had 4 employees- a divorced old couple, a stripper, ...and a cat. I wish I was kidding, the site is a joke/psyop. Most of these "fact-checker" sites spend their time calling out opinions as false rather than looking for actual objective truth. Bottom line -Do your own research, develop your own logic and critical thinking skills, or go watch CNN then believe the opposite of anything they say.

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Outlier13
Wikipedia needs to be added to the list of false fact checking mechanisms. Go visit any Wikipedia page that deals with anything not left oriented and you will find false information and false narratives made by the liberal shills who now run Wikipedia.

So you believe/trust that the left-leaning wiki-pages are accurate?

Are you having a difficult time comprehending my secret message in my literal statement?

No, I'm asking a direct question which you are not answering.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: FyreByrd

Most time I cannot totally discredit an interpretation of evidence. What I find most times is that Occam's Razor has cut the interpretation to fit consensus of the time. The problem is that consensus of the time is not always right. Then you have to make sure that the interpretation or the evidence actually applies to what they are trying to apply it to. And whether it is even relevant to conclude something in the first place. Even scientists and medical professionals bark up the wrong tree.

Take for instance the interpretation of something wrong made for your illness. It is an educated guess to find a treatment for symptoms you have. Did you tell the doctor all the symptoms being sick and unable to think? Does the doctor think it is the same thing he has seen a couple of others for recently? Does the doctor have medical records that show you have had a problem before that can cause that symptom, but the pains from the rupture you just got are in a different place than when you had kidney stones yet the doctor discounted the fact you were carrying a heavy generator over a pile of pipe?

I have seen a lot of misdiagnoses over my lifetime, when the doctors cannot find something, the people elect to go to Mayo clinic and they find the problem, the answer was far from the direction the doctors here were searching in but they would not refer the patient to Mayo's, they did not want to make them or our local hospitals look bad. Mayo's has one good policy, they start from scratch and do proper testing, they will use their own judgement of professionals there to see if they can find the problem. They do not automatically take the opinion of the disease or condition from other doctors who aren't helping the patient.

These examples are from real life events, I lost a sister to the local consensus, by the time she got to Mayo, they could not save her leg and that led to a bloodclot killing her later. If she would have went even three or four days earlier they could have saved her leg, she had an infection that the doctors here were not aware was resistant to meds, Mayo's checked right away but the damage had become to severe.

I can go on and on. It is not always the Doctors fault, in fact most times it is his concentrating on common conditions that caused him/her to look at it wrong. It often is luck that the patient gives the doctor some pertinent information after talking for twenty minutes with the doctor, but lately, if you see the doctor for ten minutes top you are lucky, during that time, specific questions are asked, the patient does not get to say... I cooked up some pork chops yesterday with mushroom soup and it tasted terrible, My taste buds must be effected...then the doctor might ask how old was that can of soup you put in, did you smell it? Lack of time is a big issue, people remember things after they are already out of the appointment.

Do you get what I am saying about consensus of the time interfering with things? Lack of communication and acting all business does not always lead to the right conclusions. Gut instinct should be considered in things and follow up research should be done when it is found something is possibly involved. Now the media and involved organizations just take the evidence and run with it, applying it without looking at the parameters. They have been scaring the heeby Geebies out of a lot of people over nothing. Caffeinated coffee was bad for you, now it adds years to some people's lives if they drink two or more cups a day.

It is mostly the prestigeous that twist evidence and the person who knows a little but not the whole story that misapplies the evidence and parrots it out.

Thank you for the precise response and example.

The medical example doesn't really carry to general topic that are not in your area or personal interest too well.

I agree that any consensus will change with new knowledge and understanding; however, in the here and now, we can only deal with the best information we have to date. Most progress in in small increments with very few 'leaps of understanding or insight'.

As an individual, I can only trust those individuals with more education, experience and talent than I to inform my opinions.

It seems to me that just those qualities that I look for in sources are derided by many on this forum just - well - because they believe in something completely made up. It frightens me because without 'common ground' to start from we will never reach any shared understanding and values.

And without shared values (and I don't mean beliefs) - what we value as valid, true and reasonable - to dismiss such fundamental tests of reality almost seems inhuman.

Yes we all are conditioned to a more or less extent as it is hoped, as I was taught, we check our conditioning by checking our sources, finding multiple independent sources and seeking well respected authorities in any field of interest. So much that passes for authority is just what some pundit or celebrity says and that way lies ruin.

The sooner people work out that there is no such thing as an unbiased fact checker, the sooner they can start researching for themselves. Seriously, there is little more pathetic than someone using Snopes, or Politifact in a debate. It's as bad as using Infowars.

Care to provide a single example/thorough debunking of an AP fact check being biased to support your claim they're as biased/reliable as info wars?

They should always be scrutinised but can't say I've ever seen AP get one wrong over the years - they're pretty much water tight, plus have little/no bias in general as any contributor showing it will be fired to preserve integrity and core goal of accurate, independent, reliable journalism.

a reply to: rickymouse

Good post and agree with your claims on science reporting. AP are incredibly reliable in general news but like all news orgs the science reporting is very, very poor. It comes down to page space, journalists as a whole having little/no science background or advanced understanding and having to present the info in a way that is accessible to a lay audience.

I have a science degree and journalism degree which is unheard of in the industry - even with that I was covering five stories a day on new scientific discoveries (in all feilds). You only have a few hours of talking to professors and researching the general topic then translate and condense it to a 350 - 500 word article.

It's very difficult to write a piece that professors and academics see as accurate without becoming so technical the general public can understand it. Often the press extort and distort fears for effect.

Many UK newspapers reported on the horrific rise of MRSA in UK hospitals over the last decade - only problem is it never happened as proper lab tests prove. The media were exploiting an elderly hobby scientist they had approached for tests. He had a basic lab in shed and innocently, without pay, tried to help them out - only problem was the lab had MRSA and other contaminants in it so the results were false positives. Hundreds more journalists approached him for tests, he politely and innocently helped them out and shoulders no blame and is a victim of the media.

Will dig out AP's reporting on MMR-Vaccines-Autism 'links' and similar cases of terrible press reporting resulting in major damage to public health and spreading false vaccine fears. Not sure if AP covered that but most UK papers did for years based on Wakefield's nonsense paper.

originally posted by: bastion
Care to provide a single example/thorough debunking of an AP fact check being biased to support your claim they're as biased/reliable as info wars?

They should always be scrutinised but can't say I've ever seen AP get one wrong over the years - they're pretty much water tight, plus have little/no bias in general as any contributor showing it will be fired to preserve integrity and core goal of accurate, independent, reliable journalism.

a reply to: rickymouse

Good post and agree with your claims on science reporting. AP are incredibly reliable in general news but like all news orgs the science reporting is very, very poor. It comes down to page space, journalists as a whole having little/no science background or advanced understanding and having to present the info in a way that is accessible to a lay audience.

I have a science degree and journalism degree which is unheard of in the industry - even with that I was covering five stories a day on new scientific discoveries (in all feilds). You only have a few hours of talking to professors and researching the general topic then translate and condense it to a 350 - 500 word article.

It's very difficult to write a piece that professors and academics see as accurate without becoming so technical the general public can understand it. Often the press extort and distort fears for effect.

Many UK newspapers reported on the horrific rise of MRSA in UK hospitals over the last decade - only problem is it never happened as proper lab tests prove. The media were exploiting an elderly hobby scientist they had approached for tests. He had a basic lab in shed and innocently, without pay, tried to help them out - only problem was the lab had MRSA and other contaminants in it so the results were false positives. Hundreds more journalists approached him for tests, he politely and innocently helped them out and shoulders no blame and is a victim of the media.

Will dig out AP's reporting on MMR-Vaccines-Autism 'links' and similar cases of terrible press reporting resulting in major damage to public health and spreading false vaccine fears. Not sure if AP covered that but most UK papers did for years based on Wakefield's nonsense paper.

The media seems to blow things up to make it interesting to groups of people and often they actually incite fear in many people. The CDC also seems to want to make people fear disease, but then again the government loves when people are tricked into being dependent on them being there.

I understand lots of the types of social control the governments use, I know they do need to keep the public dependent on them and I know if our government collapses it will be twenty years of hell here in America. I also know the agencies overseeing our foods in the countries will approve many more preservative and food additives that settle the people than those that get us thinking better. I understand the need for certain settling food chemistries in our diet, milk was one food that actually worked great for that, the government for years denied anyone was allergic to it and to this day they still subsidize it. Same with wheat, wheat has been long known as something that appeased the people, it has been pushed as a staple for almost three thousand years. Now it it would have disrupted the people or made them smarter, it would be a controlled substance here in this country. The basis of many medicines are being touted as bad by rumors, who starts those rumors. They knew aspirin worked so wanted us afraid of it so they raised the mg. to 325 per pill and tell us to take two on the bottle, that is like taking six of the old 100 mg aspirins we used to take years ago, nobody took six, maybe three but never six. In Europe they still do the 100 mg aspirin from what I read, telling people to take two. Did our agency overlooking aspiring actually cause problems with the aspirin by raising the amount in each pill? I took two for years, now I just take one of the three twenty fives. I was wondering why aspirin upset my stomach for a while now, that is because I was taking way too much. They did not inform everyone they were doing that, they did not adjust the dose when they raised the size. I think there is something weird about why that was done.

Too much and too many types of settling chemistry is not good for people's health. I think the agencies overseeing this are not smart enough to see they are causing people to get slow longterm poisoning, it is going to bankrupt the country with medical bills.

I always thought it was strange that people were willing to argue a point back and forth both believing they are right using real evidence, experience, observation, news articles, whatever. "I'm right and your wrong because I said so!" "You aren't right just because you said you are. I am!" This continues right up until some guy named snopes says what he thinks. Then all rational thought and actual effort end. Why are people so willing to accept what some internet guy says? Oh yeah, because he said something that fits their narrative.

Sorry, but I never really believed snopes or any other fact checker. If there are so many agencies willing to air fake news why would I believe the ones who claim to debunk it?

...

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Outlier13
Wikipedia needs to be added to the list of false fact checking mechanisms. Go visit any Wikipedia page that deals with anything not left oriented and you will find false information and false narratives made by the liberal shills who now run Wikipedia.

So you believe/trust that the left-leaning wiki-pages are accurate?

Are you having a difficult time comprehending my secret message in my literal statement?

No, I'm asking a direct question which you are not answering.

Your question makes zero sense. Re-read my original post. Why would you ask that question?

originally posted by: Skyfloating
If you care about truth, then this article I ran across, points to something disturbing and important.

Before the 2016 election, people freely chose their sources for information, had discussions about the veracity and accuracy of those sources if they chose to question them, and then formed opinions based on those discussions. Now, however, this choice and discussion is quickly fading away and is being replaced by a seeming ministry of truth made up of ostensibly objective media outlets like Politifact, Snopes, and the Associated Press.

Now, Snopes, the AP, and Politifact have woven themselves into the fabric of social media and have become the be all end all of “truth.” As a result of this new cozy relationship, they have the power to silence anyone they deem to be false—facts and reality be damned.

Case in point. Within the last month, Snopes and the Associated Press both claimed that articles we wrote were false when they clearly were not. As a result of their illegitimate claims, the Free Thought Project has watched our website traffic drop.

The AP created a fake story and then debunked it, and the truth, our readers, and our social media presence suffered as a result.

Read the details in the link above.

The mere idea of politically biased "fact checkers" alone is highly disturbing. Why do we need Nanny Institutions to censor for us, as if we were too dumb to form our own opinions and make our own choices on what to share?

And why do people need to receive "warnings" from social media for stories they shared? This is like sending adults back to a grade school level.

What has bothered me most about places like Snopes, is that they use easily debunkable trash-websites to make their point, but never cite rational or sincere news sources from "the other side". Their attempt is to mock and smear, not to find the truth.

I think the reason this Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" Ops is being created is because TPTB underestimated the power of a free internet where information can be shared without filters. MSM lost their Monopoly on "Truth" and it terrifies them. So now they'll punish, throttle, censor and ban anyone who strays from the hive-mind.

What can we do to counter this blatant attempt at "truth" consolidation?

9.23.2021 Update

SNOPES is now on the verge of collapsing.

FYI c/o C.O.M.: www.abovetopsecret.com...

May 16, 2023

For the Record...

Re: nypost.com...

SNOPES proved many times during Donald Trump's Presidency, that it's mostly an inaccurate Democrat ass-kissing garbage entity that's an embarrassment to the "Fact Checker" community.

U.S. President Donald Trump claimed his predecessor, or unidentified political opponents, "spied on our campaign illegally" numerous times.

False FALSE FALSE!!!

No evidence showed Obama, or any member of the White House, directed counterintelligence agents to illegally monitor the Trump campaign, nor did any court record show that former president Obama breached his authority as president during the FBI's Russia investigation.

Source: www.snopes.com...

High profile Democrats and Democrat-owned publications are going to pay for their TREASON. There is no "charging" time limit with this crime, AFAIK.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says ADAM SCHIFF is going to be held accountable for his INTENTIONAL LIES on the above subject, as well.

a reply to: Gothmog

Its a misconception to think that good journalism and fact checking = we asked someone and they told us "no... lies" therefore it must be false / misinformation....

More or less like this:
Unbiased media: Biden likes cats. Has reliable source / documents that its true
Snopes: We gotta fact check that....
*Calls WH*
Snopes: Does Biden like cats?
*Biden embarressed, shakes head at WH spokeswoman*
WH: Nope that is incorrect. Also remember you are not an independant media......
Snopes: We checked and that info is false....

This is how it works. And people are dumb as # for not seeing it.

Just two questions.

Did you research your source?

Why do you believe your source is credible?

a reply to: Skyfloating

The procedures used by the so-called fact checkers are suspicious at the very least. If someone wrote an article about a UFO encounter witnessed by dozens of people, with photos and video of the event, collected physical evidence of the landing, and mentioned that a guy in a blue shirt collected the evidence for examination by NASA - the fact checkers would find a picture of a guy in a green shirt and say the whole article is fake.

Out of all the crap media and agenda promoting sites out there to choose from the fact-hecklers are the ones I trust the least. If, for no other reason, they demand to be the final word on what is true and what isn't. Truth doesn't mind investigation and discussion. Lies are the ones who cant sit still thru an interrogatory.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Out of all the crap media and agenda promoting sites out there to choose from the fact-hecklers are the ones I trust the least. If, for no other reason, they demand to be the final word on what is true and what isn't. Truth doesn't mind investigation and discussion. Lies are the ones who cant sit still thru an interrogatory.

But you can use a fact-checker site as a starting point.

Then research what they say and compare it to other gathered information.

Another thing is always research the author of an article. OP-EDs come in all flavors. At least you'll know which way they lean.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Out of all the crap media and agenda promoting sites out there to choose from the fact-hecklers are the ones I trust the least. If, for no other reason, they demand to be the final word on what is true and what isn't. Truth doesn't mind investigation and discussion. Lies are the ones who cant sit still thru an interrogatory.

But you can use a fact-checker site as a starting point.

Then research what they say and compare it to other gathered information.

Another thing is always research the author of an article. OP-EDs come in all flavors. At least you'll know which way they lean.

Not much point of it being a 'fact-checker' site if it's only a launch point to find out of what they say is true.
There are no 'fact-checker' websites. Most that claim it are the exact opposite. They are partisan hack propaganda sites, like Snopes.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Skyfloating

The procedures used by the so-called fact checkers are suspicious at the very least. If someone wrote an article about a UFO encounter witnessed by dozens of people, with photos and video of the event, collected physical evidence of the landing, and mentioned that a guy in a blue shirt collected the evidence for examination by NASA - the fact checkers would find a picture of a guy in a green shirt and say the whole article is fake.

Out of all the crap media and agenda promoting sites out there to choose from the fact-hecklers are the ones I trust the least. If, for no other reason, they demand to be the final word on what is true and what isn't. Truth doesn't mind investigation and discussion. Lies are the ones who cant sit still thru an interrogatory.

That isnt how fact checking works but hey hyperbole is pretty much a required trait on ATS now.

Just because something goes against what any given poster may believe doesn't automatically make that source any more or less reliable.

The people to question are the ones that think "Democrats are evil, only the Republicans will save us!" At whcih point the other side says "Republicans are evil, only fhe Democrats will save us" if those sorts of sites are used for truth tnen we are in big trouble.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Skyfloating

The procedures used by the so-called fact checkers are suspicious at the very least. If someone wrote an article about a UFO encounter witnessed by dozens of people, with photos and video of the event, collected physical evidence of the landing, and mentioned that a guy in a blue shirt collected the evidence for examination by NASA - the fact checkers would find a picture of a guy in a green shirt and say the whole article is fake.

Out of all the crap media and agenda promoting sites out there to choose from the fact-hecklers are the ones I trust the least. If, for no other reason, they demand to be the final word on what is true and what isn't. Truth doesn't mind investigation and discussion. Lies are the ones who cant sit still thru an interrogatory.

That isnt how fact checking works but hey hyperbole is pretty much a required trait on ATS now.

Just because something goes against what any given poster may believe doesn't automatically make that source any more or less reliable.

The people to question are the ones that think "Democrats are evil, only the Republicans will save us!" At whcih point the other side says "Republicans are evil, only fhe Democrats will save us" if those sorts of sites are used for truth tnen we are in big trouble.

That’s the point really. Those ARE the sites that are used for ‘truth’.
Fact checkers are worse than useless.