Debunking the left's "fact-checkers" is fun!
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Leftist attempts at "fact-checking" are just clumsy attempts at censorship, and they often initiate the Streisand effect.
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
all of those lies this bitch lied about are lies. this guy is a tiny crybaby bitch.
Leftist "fact checking"
Poynter, the "journalism" institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online.
The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for an organization funded by prominent leftist billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.
Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”
Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.”
That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites — Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.
These sites were all blacklisted, along with conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented baker Jack Phillips in the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The ADF is considered a “hate group” by the SPLC and is marked on their “hate map.”
Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, (leftist billionaire George Soros’ massive front), as well as the Omidyar Network.
The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.”
Funds were sent to Poynter specifically to establish the International Fact-Checking Network.
The ‘UnNews’ list was started to help fact-checking organizations determine what was “unreliable.”
That anti-conservative mindset was apparent throughout the incoherent and inconsistent report.
Conservative organizations were included throughout.
The National Review and Heritage were removed from the list but Heritage’s Daily Signal was on it.
That combined to create a shameless double-standard.
It specifically targeted conservative media watchdog groups and didn’t include leftist ones.
The goal of the report is clear.
Poynter is recommending that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list.
It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete.
Golding wrote that, “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”
Poynter has a longstanding history. Its board of trustees includes leftist activists from the failing New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and the Washington Post.
Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its "fact-checking" programs.
The announcement mentioned that some leftist sites, while initially on the list, were taken off, including the far left conspiracy site Alternet.
The report marked conservative sources as “unreliable,” “biased,” “clickbait,” or “fake.”
Breitbart, Alliance Defending Freedom, CNSNews.com, Project Veritas, and the Washington Examiner were all marked “unreliable.”
Unreliable was defined as “sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination,” “sites that contain some fake news,” and “sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification.”
The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LiveAction, MRC, and PJ Media were tagged as “biased.”
The tag was explained as “sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.”
LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, RedState, The Blaze, and Twitchy were marked as “clickbait.”
This tag was defined as “sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, or questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.”
The list clearly reflects the biases of the organizations that compiled its component parts.
Poynter listed the organizations that contributed to the dataset in an attached document.
These included FactCheck.org, Fake News Codex, MetaCert Protocol, OpenSources, Politifact, Snopes, and the disgraced SPLC.
Ultimately, the list and the agenda showed how far Poynter is from its self-proclaimed role as “the world’s most influential school for journalists” to a far-left censor of conservatives online.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/corinne-weaver/2019/05/02/journalism-institute-poynter-tries-blacklist-29
Poynter, the "journalism" institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online.
The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for an organization funded by prominent leftist billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.
Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”
Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.”
That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites — Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.
These sites were all blacklisted, along with conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented baker Jack Phillips in the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The ADF is considered a “hate group” by the SPLC and is marked on their “hate map.”
Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, (leftist billionaire George Soros’ massive front), as well as the Omidyar Network.
The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.”
Funds were sent to Poynter specifically to establish the International Fact-Checking Network.
The ‘UnNews’ list was started to help fact-checking organizations determine what was “unreliable.”
That anti-conservative mindset was apparent throughout the incoherent and inconsistent report.
Conservative organizations were included throughout.
The National Review and Heritage were removed from the list but Heritage’s Daily Signal was on it.
That combined to create a shameless double-standard.
It specifically targeted conservative media watchdog groups and didn’t include leftist ones.
The goal of the report is clear.
Poynter is recommending that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list.
It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete.
Golding wrote that, “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”
Poynter has a longstanding history. Its board of trustees includes leftist activists from the failing New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and the Washington Post.
Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its "fact-checking" programs.
The announcement mentioned that some leftist sites, while initially on the list, were taken off, including the far left conspiracy site Alternet.
The report marked conservative sources as “unreliable,” “biased,” “clickbait,” or “fake.”
Breitbart, Alliance Defending Freedom, CNSNews.com, Project Veritas, and the Washington Examiner were all marked “unreliable.”
Unreliable was defined as “sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination,” “sites that contain some fake news,” and “sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification.”
The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, Ben Shapiro’s The Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LiveAction, MRC, and PJ Media were tagged as “biased.”
The tag was explained as “sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.”
LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, RedState, The Blaze, and Twitchy were marked as “clickbait.”
This tag was defined as “sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, or questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.”
The list clearly reflects the biases of the organizations that compiled its component parts.
Poynter listed the organizations that contributed to the dataset in an attached document.
These included FactCheck.org, Fake News Codex, MetaCert Protocol, OpenSources, Politifact, Snopes, and the disgraced SPLC.
Ultimately, the list and the agenda showed how far Poynter is from its self-proclaimed role as “the world’s most influential school for journalists” to a far-left censor of conservatives online.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/corinne-weaver/2019/05/02/journalism-institute-poynter-tries-blacklist-29
Hoosier Daddy
Verified User
they all have sources, to those of us who can read. many facts are black and white, no possible shade of grey, and some comments and quotes and actions by humans are not black and white, but more true than not. or pants on fire wrong. I have disagreed with a few factcheck opinions, but i can see where they are coming from. with fox and other right wing liars pandering to elderly white stooges, they do not even try to get it right.
Labels placed on posts on Facebook accompanying so-called fact-checks are opinion, lawyers for the social media platform’s parent company said in a recent court filing.
Television host John Stossel sued Facebook and two of its fact-checking partners, Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, earlier this year, accusing the entities of defaming him.
Stossel posted two video reports on Facebook, one of which explored the forest fires devastating California in 2020, including an interview with Michael Shellenberger, a climate change expert.
Stossel said that climate change has made things worse in the state; Shellenberger said climate change played a role but that mismanaged forests were the primary reason for the large fires.
Facebook placed a label over the video, telling users that it was “missing context.”
If users clicked through, they were met with a page on Climate Feedback’s website that stated “Claim – ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” and “Verdict: misleading.”
That claim, though, is “contained nowhere in” Stossel’s video, the suit says.
Stossel said he reached out to Climate Feedback and they didn’t respond, but two of the scientists listed as the group’s reviewers admitted they had not reviewed the video.
A similar situation played out with a different video, which explored “environmental alarmists.”
Stossel said the fact-checking process “is nothing more than a pretext used by defendants to defame users with impunity, particularly when defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content.”
The case was filed in federal court in northern California.
Lawyers for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, responded in a filing late last month, urging the court to dismiss the case.
Meta said its fact-checkers are independent from Facebook and that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
“Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice—which, as a public figure, he must,” they wrote.
“For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile,” they added.
The claim regarding opinions is key because an opinion is more difficult to press a defamation claim against.
The case was reassigned this week to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, an Obama nominee.
Koh is set to hear oral arguments during a hearing on the motion to dismiss in March 2022.
Stossel is seeking damages of at least $2 million and wants the court to order the defendants to remove the content in question.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/meta-attorneys-facebook-fact-check-labels-are-opinion_4150624.html
Television host John Stossel sued Facebook and two of its fact-checking partners, Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, earlier this year, accusing the entities of defaming him.
Stossel posted two video reports on Facebook, one of which explored the forest fires devastating California in 2020, including an interview with Michael Shellenberger, a climate change expert.
Stossel said that climate change has made things worse in the state; Shellenberger said climate change played a role but that mismanaged forests were the primary reason for the large fires.
Facebook placed a label over the video, telling users that it was “missing context.”
If users clicked through, they were met with a page on Climate Feedback’s website that stated “Claim – ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” and “Verdict: misleading.”
That claim, though, is “contained nowhere in” Stossel’s video, the suit says.
Stossel said he reached out to Climate Feedback and they didn’t respond, but two of the scientists listed as the group’s reviewers admitted they had not reviewed the video.
A similar situation played out with a different video, which explored “environmental alarmists.”
Stossel said the fact-checking process “is nothing more than a pretext used by defendants to defame users with impunity, particularly when defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content.”
The case was filed in federal court in northern California.
Lawyers for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, responded in a filing late last month, urging the court to dismiss the case.
Meta said its fact-checkers are independent from Facebook and that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
“Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice—which, as a public figure, he must,” they wrote.
“For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile,” they added.
The claim regarding opinions is key because an opinion is more difficult to press a defamation claim against.
The case was reassigned this week to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, an Obama nominee.
Koh is set to hear oral arguments during a hearing on the motion to dismiss in March 2022.
Stossel is seeking damages of at least $2 million and wants the court to order the defendants to remove the content in question.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/meta-attorneys-facebook-fact-check-labels-are-opinion_4150624.html