Do you trust the fact checkers when they report on what a president or politician says to be true or not?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes. Entirely.

Yes. Partially.

Not at all.

Other.

[MisterWack]

Yes, if they showcase their evidence & how it was obtained and exactly why it is factually inaccurate.

Politifacts made a video explaining why they don’t call every fact check a ‘lie’. To them, a lie is purposeful and it is hard to know the intensions behind it so, they wait once a year to showcase the ‘Lie of The Year!’ which comes with evidence to back up the statement it is a well known lie the political figure says.

Fact checks, I trust them when they are accurate / show transparency all the way.

IF The New York Times or Washington Post or Fox News posted First President George Washington came back from the dead and said Flat Earth was real as a headline then some fact checker explained evidence against him coming back from the dead, flat Earth was taken out of context, etc. then I expect the receipts and explanation also the conclusion that can be drawn from such an amount of research. I trust it when it is conclusive, not based on merit / intentions alone.

We need fact checking also I love it when news media hold themselves accountable and state inaccuracies & apologize instead of perpetuating disinformation / speculation and spreading false information whether intentionally or unintentionally.

[MisterWack]

Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Press though there should be more of an effort to be on the path of facts & transparency not spouting complete bullshit.

[sawno]

No because they lie. If so many fact checkers incorrectly debunk a version of a claim that isn't the claim so that others can pretend my argument is invalid that creates immense distrust.

"Did hispaniccoolguy ask questions about the validity of fact checkers and the trust people have in them when they fact check presidents? FALSE! There is a claim going round that hispaniccoolguy asked a question about fact checkers on the website girlsaskguys. While true that he asked if people trust fact checkers he did not ask for opinions about the validity of fact checking. Users were only asked if they trust fact checking on a specific topic regardless of its validity."

Its nonsense like that why you can't take them seriously and need to read the whole fact chexk very carefully. But they could also pick a similar question about fact checking on this website and debunk that instead to create confusion that the existence of your question is false.

So no, I don't trust fact checkers as anything other than a jumping off point for terms for my own research.

[goaded]

Do you have a better example than baby carrots?

[purplepoppy]

If they're from a respectable news site then yes because they would have put a lot of time in cross checking everything and have a reputation to uphold. They also have the means to directly contact the white House for clarification.

[DrPepper12]

EXACTLY!!! Reputable journalism doesn't need fact check

[NordicInScandinavia]

Never encountered a "fact checker", we has the news but that's it.

When politicians open their mouth I usually do my own research if it matters to me.

[Effably]

To some extent. A 'fact checker' is at least subject to a good degree of scrutiny by the viewers.

The problem is mostly that fact checking is based on neutrality. However recent political rethoric (last 12 or so years) has frames things as good vs evil.

While this is great for say, drumming up support for a war, it is horrible for genuine discussion or truth.

What I am saying is, the mentality of "Id not with us, you are against us" makes it exceedingly difficult to find a trustworthy source. After all if the criteria of judging accuracy is how much it lines up with your own view, it is all a little pointless.

Hopefully we can move from the recent Us and Them mentalities to a This and That mentality.

[goaded]

Both-siderism is a curse on humanity and the reason the world is in this state.

If Trump says the US has spent $350 billion on Ukraine, for example, a fact check will say something like this: "Government resources place the amount of supplemental funding appropriated by Congress since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine at $174 billion -- which includes not only support for Ukraine but also for other countries affected by the conflict, stationing additional NATO troops and more." abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=119167409

Because he's lying. That's what a fact check is.

If one person claims foreign countries pay US tariffs on their goods and another says the costs are passed on to the US consumer, only one is correct and a fact check will, again, say Trump is lying.

These aren't matters of opinion.

[Effably]

Example not withstanding since I have no idea about that specific example, I fully agree with you!

Truth is, when verified, objective.

If it was unclear I apologize. I am not advocating neutrality as in playing the middle field. There is no middle between a true and false fact. I am advocating neutrality as in being open to seeing all views first. If we militarize the stance before fact checking you get people who, despite the truth being shoved in their face and being easy to verify, refuse to accept it.

Ergo, your examples while they sound true to me, because politics have weaponized credibility (what I mean with right and wrong, good and evil) it is difficult to gey through to people despite an honest, open, repeatable fact check.

Did I do a better job that time?
Weaponizing truth has happened. It is bad. I lament how it makes people refuse to even look for truth because when truth is not in alignment it becomes "fake".

[goaded]

Didn't you bother checking whether the example was true? Not even clicking the link?

Regardless, I had second thoughts about the "since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine" part, I wondered, could the US have provided the remaining $175 billion before the invasion?

But since the amount Trump illegally withheld from Ukraine, leading to his first impeachment, was "just" $391 million, it seems very unlikely.

It's not unreasonable to treat unsupported assertions (especially from Trump) as false. Especially when he does provide figures, www.whitehouse.gov/.../ "Yes, Biden Spent Millions on Transgender Animal Experiments", simple checks show that they were actually testing the effects of human treatments on animals, not “$8 million for making mice transgender.”



Yes, you can spin the truth by leaving out details, inconvenient facts, but that can be countered by people pointing out those facts. Once you start claiming Ukraine started the invasion of Ukraine, there's no hope any more.

[Effably]

I did not think your example was important to the principle. The principle held whether I checked it or not. Again, we are agreeing so the seeming disagreement is... weird. We are saying the same thing you know. The validity of your example simple was not important for the point of your example to hold merit. And abstaining from commenting on it was a way to adhere to the question asked. Truth good, lying bad.

Ah yes. Trump thinking Transgenic and Transgender is the same thing is amusing. I believe that after being wrong and lying enough, the bar for proof should be raised. So in order for me to take anything he says seriously while he says them, I will require cited sources and a look into their research methodology and practice.

None of that is really in conflict with both you and me agreeing that truth is objective, important, and needs to be the principal focus.

Ukraine did not start the war. There was absolutely provocation and Russia was genuinely forced to react in some way. That way could have been peaceful. They still pulled the trigger. They are still guilty. But it was and remains an instigated proxy war by USA/NATO/EU. That does not make Ukraine a bad guy though. Ukraine was stuck between bigger sides. The warring nation remains the bad guy. It just adds some more bad guys to the list.

Anyway. Since we agree on the actual question asked I think we're mostly done? I do apologize if I somehow made it seem like we were of different minds on this.

[goaded]

"instigated proxy war by USA/NATO/EU" Ah. Because Russia has never had a NATO country on their border?

[Effably]

Having one and getting a new one, especially one as strong and populated as Ukraine are different. Especially one that is weaponizing while talking to your strategic opponents.

I am not making excuses for Russia. Ukraine was never going to attack Russia. War was never a required answer.

Simply stating that if we want truth, truth is there was a degree of provocation. Certainly not enough to warrant the response. Being able to see both sides does not mean accepting both sides. Yes, there was provocation. Yes, the war was intentional. No, the war did not need to happen. Yes Russia attacked and they did not need to. Their disproportionate willingness to do so makes clear there were more at play than the provocatiom itself.

This is not a discussion of which side has how much blame. We agree that fact checking matters. I am lifting the importance of not having a predefined verdict when you judge. That's all there is to this.

[goaded]

They had two, for decades. They now have two more. Yes, you are absolutely making excuses for Russia: "Now. Lets be real. The war was provoked. While Russia is ultimately guilty, Russia was forced. Russia was never going to allow Ukraine a membership in Nato. Russia was also never going to allow the military buildup Ukraine was told to do. Both prompted by NATO, at the behest of USA, with guarantees of membership and support. This was warmongering but fine. Millions of lives would be lost. USA wanted a proxy war to weaken Russia. One was created. So far, business as usual. Ugly business, but same old." Does France represent a threat to global security? ↗

The US, NATO, the EU didn't want a war, proxy or otherwise, with Russia. Ukraine wanted to feel safe from invasion or political dominance from Russia, so they wanted NATO and EU membership. They'd seen what had happened to Georgia and Belarus, and they didn't want the same fate.

[Effably]

Understanding an issue before condemning it is not a problematic stance mate. I hope that the point of why I am highlighting a problem of absolutes and us vs them mentalities is clear here.

You and I are in agreement over the general principle. I am painting a mutual side argument and then judging them. That is not making excuses. It is being fair.

If you want to discuss the question at hand, I am happy to do so. But if you are simply going to pivot from one argument to another waiting for one to stick this is pointless. Yes, I believe our media paints a one sided view. Yes I think that is problematic. No, that does not ultimately make Ukraine the agressor or anything like that. Understanding is not accepting. If you cited the paragraph before or after you would have me clearly laying the blame on Russia. You know that, so why only pull the segment that suited this pivot?

I am by no means or stretch of the imagination justifying this war. It is simply a tiny bit more complicated than only one bad party.

[goaded]

Here's an absolute: invading a country, raping and murdering civilians, and stealing their children to raise as your own is absolutely bad. Do you disagree?

As to your point about the paragraphs around the part I quoted, have you ever heard of the, "shit sandwich"? Basically, it means you say something nice either side of something terrible. Forgive me for ignoring the sliced bread.

Ukraine, a sovereign state, should have the absolute right to choose its future. (Oh, look, another absolute!) Russia was free to diplomatically try to convince the government of Ukraine to turn in their direction and away from the EU and NATO. Ukrainian politicians were free to do the same to the people.

Free countries around the world have supported each other for a century now. Trump has decided not to bother, probably because he's afraid of something Putin has on him.

[Effably]

I agree. And if you look at what you call a "shit sandwich" you would see me making the exact same argument and stating that it is what truly matters.

The fact I do that, repeatedly, but you still keep acting as though I am not, is why I think you are arguing just to argue. I say it two or three times in the message you referenced. It is also the final verdict.

I have said it multiple times in this discussion. Look. The fact I can see how it is portrayed in Russian media and Western media and then make my own decision of blame, which still falls on Russia, is not a shit sandwich. It is actual proof of thought. Try it.

[Zack-Bann]

I have seen fact checkers discredit things I witnessed with my very own eyes as being false


So no: I don’t


Nothing is unbiased anymore
There’s absolutely no way for an individual to access any kind of information online without it being biased towards one side or the other


Even if you want to “do your own research” that research is still based on biased information you found

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

... But I see nothing that was ever unbiased to begin with, instead I see how editorial policies have always conducted any news source

[abc3643]

Fact checkers generally do their job and here's why:

In fact checking, reputation is everything.
There are multiple fact checking organizations.
Those fact checking organizations which report the facts will be consistent every time.
Those which are often in disagreement with the majority are likely incompetent. Such organizations lose their reputation as fact checkers and instead gain a reputation of unreliability or, worse, bias.

[ProbablyClueless]

I trust them somewhat. When I'm looking at these fact check reports I have to make sure that

• they're fact checking the claim that was actually made (because sometimes they would change the claim being made and then fact check that instead of what was actually said)
• what source materials were actually used in the fact check
• the rational basis for their conclusion
• and the fact check organization's bias.

[NicholasRedone]

The whole thing must've been invented by someone or maybe it's even only popular in some countries. Maybe it's only a popular "thing" aka whoever invented fact checking or it's only popular to some, maybe fact checking originated as an Israeli thing. Shrug

[Anonymous]

They're usually more correct and at least show their work. In today's climate though, no one is ever wrong, they're maliciously against the president always.

If they're talking about trump, he makes all these claims and at cites different numbers in different talks constantly and said "many people say it" then when asked about specifics says "I don't I know why don't you look into it" then gets mad when people look into it and tell him he's wrong.

Tldr fact checkers aren't always correct, but they show their work and correct themselves when proven incorrect.

[DryGermanGuy]

Yes and especially after Kellyanne Conway introduced alternative facts for their minions.

[McLlovin]

I typically do my own research. The poll is very telling. So my question is how many people in the USA actually believe them when they tell you the president’s approval rating? How do they even get it lol

[Joshydavid25]

Partially, usually even if they don't wanna agree with a certain side, they'll mask it to seem as if that side is wrong, but if you actually look into what they're saying, they usually tell the truth..

[hahahmm]

No. They lie or only fact check one side while letting lies slip from the other side. It's just propaganda. Most polls are rigged too.

[AviatorTom]

Partially. They usually fact check only the items that are most political, that give them the greatest audience. They never fact check every item in a speech.

[Pet68]

No, not at all, because I am not so naive. And do these people seriously think that the average person can't check to see whether a story is factual or not?

[DrPepper12]

I don't use "fact checkers". Consult multiple sources.

Unlike a pestilence that rhymes with GaGa...

[Account]

I am not entirely sure if I trust anything anymore.

[Alex-Snow]

I generally do. If it seems weird I will check out the Usual Trump lie by myself independently

[goaded]

Yes, entirely. Do you know why? It's because they give their sources and their reasoning and I can check both.

[sawno]

And that makes you trust them? For me the sources contradicting their conclusion makes me distrust them.

[goaded]

@sawno So give me an example of a fact check where there's a reputable source contradicting their conclusion.

[sawno]

This is the first example I could find where its alleged that baby carrots contain chlorine as a preservative. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/baby-carrots/

Snopes debunks the claim because they disagree with the fact that its not cut down full sized carrots. That part doesn't matter, nobody cares if its cut down or organically small. What they care about is not having chlorine in their food.

But right underneath the mostly false is them admitting its actually true, the original claim they are debunking says that its soaked in large vats of water containing a mixture of water and chlorine. Snopes is twisting the claim to mean a lot of chlorine so they can say its false.

They could have given a less biased rating on that, you could call it "True with nuances" since the carrots are treated with chlorine just with certain details of this particular warning being wrong. That does not mean no other more accurate warnings exist.

I know in politics there's been more examples of this but I don't remember the specific examples since it was a few years ago since the very obvious one happened and I almost never use these fact checkers since I don't trust them at all.

[goaded]

@sawno You are joking?

What's the "reputable source contradicting their conclusion" I asked for? The one that lies about the white on the surface being chlorine (it's dehydration)? The one that says "they use a good amount of chlorine" when it is really "well within limits set by the EPA and is comparable to levels found in tap water" (and rinsed off with plain water afterwards, not to mention it being used for "many pre-cut food items")?

If you've been swimming, do you think you've been "soaked in chlorine"?

"Claim: Baby carrots are made from deformed full-sized carrots that have been soaked in chlorine.

Rating: Mostly False

What's True

Baby carrots are often treated with small amounts of chlorine as an antimicrobial measure to reduce contamination.

What's False

Most baby carrots are not made from larger carrots (deformed or otherwise) and are not "soaked in chlorine."" (slightly edited for clarity, not content.)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/baby-carrots/

[sawno]

Your missing the point. If a claim is going around that they contain chlorine and people don't want to eat them then snopes will twist the claim or take a more inaccurate versiom to debunk. All these technicalities have nothing to do with the fact they DO use chlorine. If a body considers it safe or all the other technicalities they come up with are irrelevant.

My argument is that I don't trust these fact checkers not because what they write in the article isn't true. But because their reasoning and sources make it clear they are debunking different versions of popular claims and do so on purpose to mislead people who try to use it against me as a gotcha.

Usually when someone comes at me with a fact check article claiming I am wrong I can debunk the misleading article pretty quick as a result.

A fact check would be something like this. "Does goadad go in lengthty debates on internet forums? FALSE! While it is true that goadad has lengthy discussions it is incorrect that this happens on a forum. He does this on the question ansering site GirlsAskGuys which while similar is not a traditional discussion board running forum software. And while he has arguments he does not do so in a formal debate setting."

Its nonsense like that where you can twist most true claims into being false on technicalities.

[goaded]

@sawno That wasn't the claim, the claim was that they were "soaked in chlorine" (and that the white coating that appears is chlorine). If you don't think there's a difference, put one hand in a bucket of water from a swimming pool and the other in a bucket of chlorine. Let them soak. (Please, don't do that, you probably need both hands.)

Couple that with the other untruths in the claim, and "Mostly False" is a very reasonable conclusion.

I assumed you were going to suggest something politically important, with "sources contradicting their conclusion".

I seriously doubt they'd claim I don't indulge in lengthy debates on internet forums. I'd expect a "Mostly True" decision. C:

My point: They don't do that, and they show their workings; that's valuable, and until I find a site that outright lied (given the information available at the time), I'll keep trusting, but occasionally verifying.

[sawno]

No, I demonstrated exactly how this works. They would put false if they want it to be false. Your defending what they are debunking without taking into my account that they are debunking a version of a claim that would not be made. You keep glancing past that. You can't take an article I use as evidence how they spin things and then defend that they are correct in the article. The whole point of my argument is that its a different argument being debunked.

So you may trust them, I inherently do not because they operate in dishonest ways. But like I said in another opinion, the fact that the truth is usually in their article if you read carefully enough so it can be a useful starting point for real sources.

[sawno]

And no, "soaked in chlorine" is not the claim even in the source they are citing. The source is saying "After they are cut to size they are soaked in large vats of water mixed with chlorine to preserve them" . So they are soaked in large vasts of water that also contain chlorine in them. That can be 0.05% chlorine. Snopes debunking "Soaked in chlorine" is dishonest.

[goaded]

@sawno https://www.facebook.com/reel/421500973338697/

[goaded]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dmoT9AfoI

[Pudsmucker]

I don't even think that fact checkers even know what they're doing half the time. They're young teeny boppers. I think they have conquered their world. Nothing's like having a true research.

[Surely]

My question on the fact checkers is. Where do they get their honest to goodness and nothing but the truth information?

[nawtee_me]

I do my own fact checking. While the reports may be true in what they said the context may not be making the report misleading.

[Dargil]

I read a lot and form my own opinions. If a fact rings true, I accept it. If it is reacted to with hate and rage, I don't. This comes out right on the average.

[bolverk]

No, I do not trust "fact checkers" as most of them have their own political bias.

[Armourdillo]

What about community notes on Twitter?

[sawno]

@Armourdillo Community notes are hit and miss depending on who is currently winning the infighting but at least have a decent correct ratio and equally check all sides. I find it more credible than the corporate fact checkers who I distrust by default.

[Armourdillo]

So like if on CNN they report that there's an earthquake, would you assume it's a lie until you corroborate it on Twitter or do your own investigation?

[sawno]

@Armourdillo I'd be weary of stuff like this. https://youtu.be/vbTdRPnjFmU?feature=shared you can see in the background the reporter is playing it up.

Basically any event i prefer independant reports since that tends to paint a broader picture.

[seeyounexttuesday]

"Fact checkers" are nothing but corporate media propaganda.

[CandyRattt]

The fact checkers would be more believable. If just once in a blue moon, they said the Democrat issue was false. I never seen that before.

[SmokinAces2000]

If there’s sufficient evidence. The main politicians against fact checking are the ones that don’t want their “facts” checked

[Anonymous]

only if the facts are unedited full context videos

don't care about he said/she said quotes as "evidence" or written documents

video proof or zilch

[Alexa6]

I check facts most of the time. Unless it’s my friend, I won’t make an argument unless I have the facts.

[dustybiker2]

Fact checkers tend to have evidence.

[NathanDavis]

I just don't care for "the news"

[Communicationisking]

Fact checker = censorship no matter the topic

[katiesmuff]

Not much of what they say do I believe.

[Massageman]

I do my own checking if in doubt.

[Ladsin2]

Pretty much not at all.

[bellicose]

Hell no!