Fact Checking

Due to a recent discussion on the Forum, I wanted to fact check some stuff ... and wanted to look at the various sites to do that in a fair and accurate way.

I stumbled across this article on the biased ways of fact checking that were used during the 2012 Elections. Is it any wonder that any of us could be "low-information voter" ... depending on whose fact-checking we use?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...2012-election/

I suppose that Forbes might be considered right-wing, but they use specific examples to show the "tactics" of fact-checking.

Let me guess. The ten worst fact checks favored Democrats.

Am I close?

Politifact on certain topics seemed to me to be especially terrible. I learned that you can never just read their bottom line rating, you have to read their explanation and then dig some more yourself.

One thing became abundantly clear to me this last election.

People are most easily conned when they’re getting their disinformation from someone who seems to be part of their tribe, and MSNBC and Fox both provide ample opportunity for people to stick with their own tribe.

Buzz, the article describes "tactics" ... the examples given are right-favorable, but you could apply the "tactics" to any slant that fit your perspectives. One might expect that, since Forbes would be a right-leaning source. I would expect that both right- and left-leaning politicians would use these tactics.

Whatever one's leanings, I'd hope that most everyone on this forum is also willing to accept facts as best they can be uncovered, so they can evaluate for themselves. That would mean that all of us have to be aware of how the facts can be manipulated to advance agendas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Buzz, the article describes "tactics" ... the examples given are right-favorable, but you could apply the "tactics" to any slant that fit your perspectives. One might expect that, since Forbes would be a right-leaning source. I would expect that both right- and left-leaning politicians would use these tactics.

Whatever one's leanings, I'd hope that most everyone on this forum is also willing to accept facts as best they can be uncovered, so they can evaluate for themselves. That would mean that all of us have to be aware of how the facts can be manipulated to advance agendas.

---

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz

Let me guess. The ten worst fact checks favored Democrats.

Am I close?

Politifact on certain topics seemed to me to be especially terrible. I learned that you can never just read their bottom line rating, you have to read their explanation and then dig some more yourself.

One thing became abundantly clear to me this last election.

People are most easily conned when they’re getting their disinformation from someone who seems to be part of their tribe, and MSNBC and Fox both provide ample opportunity for people to stick with their own tribe.

---

What if one watches neither? What if one has a reading program that is inclusive of all reasonable points of view? In your very closed mind what does that make those people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Due to a recent discussion on the Forum, I wanted to fact check some stuff ... and wanted to look at the various sites to do that in a fair and accurate way.

I stumbled across this article on the biased ways of fact checking that were used during the 2012 Elections. Is it any wonder that any of us could be "low-information voter" ... depending on whose fact-checking we use?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...2012-election/

I suppose that Forbes might be considered right-wing, but they use specific examples to show the "tactics" of fact-checking.

---

Facts are facts, black and white. It is the stuff betwen the lines that the media and sources will twist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

What if one watches neither? What if one has a reading program that is inclusive of all reasonable points of view? In your very closed mind what does that make those people?

---

I didn't know I was close minded, but if you say so...

It is possible to be balanced in your reading, but it is also possible to ignore ideas from outside your tribe with that medium too. At least in my narrow minded opinion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz

I didn't know I was close minded, but if you say so...

It is possible to be balanced in your reading, but it is also possible to ignore ideas from outside your tribe with that medium too. At least in my narrow minded opinion!

---

Buzz : I wouldn't label you as closed or narrow minded.....but IMO you/me along with everyone else on this board suffer from SELECTIVE minded reading/listening...we hear/listen to those mediums that we want to hear from and shut out those that we dont care for...

kinda like our dogs that choose which whistle they want to hear, and which ones the choose to blow off :p:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonMallari

Buzz : I wouldn't label you as closed or narrow minded.....but IMO you/me along with everyone else on this board suffer from SELECTIVE minded reading/listening...we hear/listen to those mediums that we want to hear from and shut out those that we dont care for...

kinda like our dogs that choose which whistle they want to hear, and which ones the choose to blow off :p:p

---

Ha! My old dog is deaf... Unless I say... "You hungry?" She hears that every damn time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz

I didn't know I was close minded, but if you say so...

It is possible to be balanced in your reading, but it is also possible to ignore ideas from outside your tribe with that medium too. At least in my narrow minded opinion!

---

Your 1st reaction to someone as you post is they are a follower of the following: Beck, Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. yet you do not know that for a fact.

I read the New Yorker (Great jokes & an occasional good article, but east coast), National Review (again some good articles, but an east coast bias), lots of stuff from CATO (my favorite source as long as they stay away from drug legalization, you should try that), American Spectator (sort of an NR with different authors), Commentary (Jewishy) but written by Professory types with very interesting articles about the ME, same with Chronicles (not Jewishy but professorial with articles about our country, from these publication's lists of recommended reading I glean those books that may be of interest. Have you ever read anything by Thomas Sowell, he has written some very good stuff, at least in my narrow mind ;-). & of course I read the local papers with the Seattle Times ranking as not quite as left leaning as the NY Times but trying. For entertainment it's SI or a sports contest, how are the Jackrabbits doing this year, I am only able to follow them on ESPN or the sports pages.

& of course, on this forum there are some bright folks whose posts are worthy of a read :idea:, but not that many from your side of the fence, which is too bad. On certain but limited subjects most have something to offer, some just don't know when to turn it off :confused:.