When fact check doesn’t tell you what you want to hear do you claim that it’s false and biased?

[SmokinAces2000]

Yes

No

[goaded]

To Mr. Post-and-Block: No, I'm one of those people who check facts based on reputable sources and, well, reality.

Why would you ignore those provided by people whose job it is to look them up for you? It's the same stupid argument made by people who insist there's no truth on Wikipedia, which is also a good provider of sources. I also tend to look up court filings and special counsel reports, where relevant.

Where do you go for your "independent sources"?

What do you think when you see "95% of the top 3 consultant management firms" as part of a rant about how terrible the Democrats are? Me, I see an obvious lie, which makes me doubt the other claims made by the same person.

[Lliam]

It's not a matter of what I want to hear or don't want to hear.

I have found that fact checkers promote the official propaganda, so I give them as much credibility as I do corporate news, which is zero.

Their job is to tell people what to think, not provide all the facts.

I pay attention to them to see if they shed any new light, but I fact check the fact checkers. I want to know the truth even if it makes me rethink what I thought I knew.

[Anonymous]

When most “fact checks” have been proven to be lies, we should not rely on “fact checks” wether you like what it says or not, but rather dig deeper to find out the information you’re searching for to find the truth rather than to rely on a fact check just cause you like what it told you.

The worst part is that many of those fact checks that have been proven to be lies, still remain up dumbing the people down for those who are jig smart enough to search further or just couldn’t be bothered to.

[goaded]

"When most “fact checks” have been proven to be lies"
Fact check: that a lie.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded only a leftist would say that. What ignorance.

[goaded]

Show me a lying fact check, then.

[combative]

Only idiots believe "fact checkers". Anyone of average intelligence or greater just does basic research on their own. "Fact checkers" are propaganda agencies. That was their designed purpose from their inception, to influence people that are too lazy to think for themselves just like AI chat bots.

[goaded]

Why? Unlike propagandists, fact checkers provide sources. Follow them, check them. I suppose you'd rather believe things like "95% of the top 3 consultant management firms", which was recently quoted on here.

[combative]

@goaded You're definitely one of those people that are too lazy to think for yourself. If you got to the 15th word of what I was typing you would have got to "basic research", which means I independently seek out sources to back my understanding of topics. You have a tiktok brain. Anything over 5 seconds of attention is beyond the scope of your limited capacity.

[WindAtMyBack]

I prefer to check things out myself. I do use fact checkers, but I might fact check the fact checkers. At least the fact checker might give me ideas on things to check out.

I don't automatically accept ANYTHING, not even by experts. I learned better than to do that a long time ago.

[RavVid]

No but I would check the fact check. Usually there are assumptions.

We are in an election now. Mostly the left is regarded as better wrt healthcare. But yesterday I checked on the number of bulk billing GP clinics and they have decreased under the Left gov't.

So it is bullshit and the prior conservative gov't was far better at health care.

Always fact check the fact checkers your self. Mostly they are leftist spinners.

[Red_Arrow]

Fact checks are usually done by individuals or groups that have an agenda of their own and often they are not truthful.

[DryGermanGuy]

No. That's for MAGA airheads still searching for the 2000 mules, schools that have litterboxes for children identifying as cats or Joe Biden's Ukrainian bribery millions...

[NathanDavis]

truths stand by themselves... whether I like it or not

[Surely]

If the fact checkers gives me a reasonable explanation with some facts. I will believe them. Though I might fact check from another source. Just to confirm it.
I do often wonder if anyone ever checks the fact checkers?

[OneViewpoint]

No, I'm not MAGA. I try to live in reality. No matter how unpleasant that is.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I don't trust fact checkers to begin with because often there's political bias and motivation going on..

[David318578]

Well the "fact check" is kind of a joke in itself, like the people "fact checking" are somehow the experts and authority?

[exitseven]

No, unless the so called facts are found on the fake news websites.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

Something facts just don't tell the whole story. A lot of facts can be misleading especially if they are presented in a certain way.

[loveslongnails]

No, but I go to several different fact check sources because even they can be biased.

[Blunky]

That's how echo chambers work.

[Kelley1]

I don't do that but most people do.

[slatyb]

Not if the data is backed by multiple sources.

[DrPepper12]

Depends on your "fact" checker

[OddBeMe]

No. I also fact check the fact checker.