You just exposed your own confirmation bias. Congratulations.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do you fact check?
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
You just exposed your own confirmation bias. Congratulations.
You just exposed your own confirmation bias. Congratulations.
Duh... I am a righty, my bias is righty, nothing to hide. I love righty sites, righty propaganda, Hannity, and Rush. No shit. Because of the way I fact check stuff, I must offset my bias by seeking out opposing propaganda. If we only fact check what we want the truth to be, it is not a fact check. That is what this thread is about, why I watch Rachael Maddow, and why I frequent Daily Kos.
Irish Exit
Verified User
That is a nice tip on trying to get local, I will give it a try.
Local reporters can usually get better details out of police sources, etc, and don't get lost in the political commentary that network/MSM stories do. Twitter is an ok way to get linked into local sources during breaking events if you don't mind scrolling a lot through posts. Other social media as well. Knew someone who lived in the area during Sandy Hook so I got a lot just by watching his FB posts that day. Listened to local police scanner during the Boston Marathon manhunt, including the night they found dipshit in the boat. Stuff like that helps too.
The government data may be good for some statistical fact checking, cool idea.
Snopes is a fact checking site, so it is lefty biased. "Fact checking" specific sites are lefty sites.
Considering that all sites are partisan, what information are you trying to block when you avoid certain ones?
All sites are not partisan. There is a big difference between the NY Times and Washington Post news stories (not editorials or opinion columns) and sites like Slate, Politico, Alternet, Mother Jones, Media Matters, Progress, Breitbart, Newsmax, Townhall, etc. You can often tell a site is very partisan just by the headline on the stories. Often the headlines do not even reflect what the story contains.
I'm trying to avoid stories that usually cater to one side by attacking the other side, that defend their side, or present information taking a political position. Also, partisan sites often seek to discredit an idea by trying to discredit individuals like claiming high school students are "crisis actors," attacking women for claiming sexual harassment, or blaming the NRA for shootings.
Snopes might be liberal but I have yet to find them wrong on specific facts. Something not quite so black and white are more questionable and I have read about some corporation they often protect due to some connection.
Duh... I am a righty, my bias is righty, nothing to hide. I love righty sites, righty propaganda, Hannity, and Rush. No shit. Because of the way I fact check stuff, I must offset my bias by seeking out opposing propaganda. If we only fact check what we want the truth to be, it is not a fact check. That is what this thread is about, why I watch Rachael Maddow, and why I frequent Daily Kos.
Believing right or left-wing sites often creates faulty opinions by the listeners. For example, some of my conservative friends are always saying "you won't find that in the mainstream media." If I ask for an example they tell me they don't read the mainstream media. I tell them I saw those stories in the mainstream media and ask them how they know it was not covered if they don't read those sources. Their answer: "I heard it on Rush."
To me the worst things about Fox and MSNBC is the hate they promote---and having several people all talk at the same time because conflict sells.
Believing right or left-wing sites often creates faulty opinions by the listeners. For example, some of my conservative friends are always saying "you won't find that in the mainstream media." If I ask for an example they tell me they don't read the mainstream media. I tell them I saw those stories in the mainstream media and ask them how they know it was not covered if they don't read those sources. Their answer: "I heard it on Rush."
To me the worst things about Fox and MSNBC is the hate they promote---and having several people all talk at the same time because conflict sells.
Most people I talk to on both sides of the aisle do not seem to be able to separate themselves from bias, nor can they distinguish biased reporting from non biased reporting. You sound like you have a better handle on it than most.
Snopes, along with many other "fact checking" sites does not seem to present lies, but they tend to limit the data that they compile to data that supports their agenda. The question format that they use presents "softball" questions where the answer supports lefty agenda. It is entirely possible to engineer a political landscape using true facts that are out of context. I do utilize Snopes for fact checking, but only as another source of propaganda to sift through in search of the truth.
One of my most resilient and effective fact checking methods is to assume the exact opposite is true from what a rightwing message boarder claims.
This method has served me well, going back to when rightwingers were telling me that invading Iraq would be an excellent adventure, and hollering at me about the marvels of the George Dumbya Bush economy.
This method has served me well, going back to when rightwingers were telling me that invading Iraq would be an excellent adventure, and hollering at me about the marvels of the George Dumbya Bush economy.
One of my most resilient and effective fact checking methods is to assume the exact opposite is true from what a rightwing message boarder claims.
This method has served me well, going back to when rightwingers were telling me that invading Iraq would be an excellent adventure, and hollering at me about the marvels of the George Dumbya Bush economy.
I admit doing the same, even though I know better. It takes discipline for me to be objective and study the other side of the story. Sometimes I will imagine that I am being paid a fee to win a case for my political opponent, which forces me to research what it takes for me to WIN my opponents case.
One of my most resilient and effective fact checking methods is to assume the exact opposite is true from what a rightwing message boarder claims.
This method has served me well, going back to when rightwingers were telling me that invading Iraq would be an excellent adventure, and hollering at me about the marvels of the George Dumbya Bush economy.
That method determines your partisan position but not necessarily the facts. Those who say they "listen to both sides" and then make up their own mind are basing their opinions on distorted information. Read partisan material for an opinion, but not the "truth."
Most people I talk to on both sides of the aisle do not seem to be able to separate themselves from bias, nor can they distinguish biased reporting from non biased reporting. You sound like you have a better handle on it than most.
Snopes, along with many other "fact checking" sites does not seem to present lies, but they tend to limit the data that they compile to data that supports their agenda. The question format that they use presents "softball" questions where the answer supports lefty agenda. It is entirely possible to engineer a political landscape using true facts that are out of context. I do utilize Snopes for fact checking, but only as another source of propaganda to sift through in search of the truth.
I think Snopes is good for answering very factual questions like whether David Hogg was at school during the shooting which some sites were saying he was not there showing video to support their claim. Snopes gave the background and explained the apparent inconsistency. It allowed a quick check for something which was not particularly important to me.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
One of my most resilient and effective fact checking methods is to assume the exact opposite is true from what a rightwing message boarder claims.
This method has served me well, going back to when rightwingers were telling me that invading Iraq would be an excellent adventure, and hollering at me about the marvels of the George Dumbya Bush economy.
In that case - I think you're one of the most intelligent people on JPP.
Duh... I am a righty, my bias is righty, nothing to hide. I love righty sites, righty propaganda, Hannity, and Rush. No shit. Because of the way I fact check stuff, I must offset my bias by seeking out opposing propaganda. If we only fact check what we want the truth to be, it is not a fact check. That is what this thread is about, why I watch Rachael Maddow, and why I frequent Daily Kos.
And this is why we see American politics where it is now.
No one even knows what primary sources are anymore much less how to read them or even attempt to access the information for themselves. They would rather have someone tell them what the information means instead of reading for themselves...thinking about and arriving at a decision and then defending that decision.