I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts. Made worse because their “data” is a biased “study”. I would love unbiased honest fact checking, history doesn’t support that happening. Propaganda in the form of falsehood has been presented as truth forever.
I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts. Made worse because their “data” is a biased “study”. I would love unbiased honest fact checking, history doesn’t support that happening. Propaganda in the form of falsehood has been presented as truth forever.
"I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts"
Exactly! And this is a serious problem. Because it leaves us with a lot of people who are badly misinformed about the world they live in and therefore can't make rational, informed decision.
To be exceptionally clear, I'm not saying that rational informed decisions will always jibe with my own. It's perfectly possible to look at the same facts and come to different conclusions or have different priorities. This is the whole point of living in a pluralistic society.
My point is that we are looking at different "facts" and therefore coming to *irreconcilable* conclusions. And this is unsustainable. Just saying this is unfixable is pure defeatism.
Yes, and facebook and most of media didn't held Trump and conservatives to a standard of fact, that they never attempted to apply to the left.
For instance, when the presidential debates were fact checked, Trump was called out on many lies, and Biden and Harris (separate debates, yes) were called out on a token few, and a few more that were defended by the fact checkers as an understandable simplification. Image if they had vouched for Trump that way! Laughable idea. All three debaters lied almost constantly, even if Trump lied the most. This uneven treatment for different people within the same event was typically far more uneven for all other events.
"Literal nazi", anyone? Beyond the debates, frequent and bold claims by all kinds of celebrity and politicians that Trump is a literal nazi were never fact-checked. This happened many times, every single day. For some people, there never was fact checking, so nothing is lost now. There is no wonder why this version of fact-checking is rejected as an ideologically-captured hoax. "Literal nazi" to me means, "fact-check standards for thee, but not for me".
Here is a simple idea: Treat everyone to the same standard, and maybe someone will trust the process. No reason to trust? Then other details just don't matter.
I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts. Made worse because their “data” is a biased “study”. I would love unbiased honest fact checking, history doesn’t support that happening. Propaganda in the form of falsehood has been presented as truth forever.
"I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts"
Exactly! And this is a serious problem. Because it leaves us with a lot of people who are badly misinformed about the world they live in and therefore can't make rational, informed decision.
To be exceptionally clear, I'm not saying that rational informed decisions will always jibe with my own. It's perfectly possible to look at the same facts and come to different conclusions or have different priorities. This is the whole point of living in a pluralistic society.
My point is that we are looking at different "facts" and therefore coming to *irreconcilable* conclusions. And this is unsustainable. Just saying this is unfixable is pure defeatism.
Yes, and facebook and most of media didn't held Trump and conservatives to a standard of fact, that they never attempted to apply to the left.
For instance, when the presidential debates were fact checked, Trump was called out on many lies, and Biden and Harris (separate debates, yes) were called out on a token few, and a few more that were defended by the fact checkers as an understandable simplification. Image if they had vouched for Trump that way! Laughable idea. All three debaters lied almost constantly, even if Trump lied the most. This uneven treatment for different people within the same event was typically far more uneven for all other events.
"Literal nazi", anyone? Beyond the debates, frequent and bold claims by all kinds of celebrity and politicians that Trump is a literal nazi were never fact-checked. This happened many times, every single day. For some people, there never was fact checking, so nothing is lost now. There is no wonder why this version of fact-checking is rejected as an ideologically-captured hoax. "Literal nazi" to me means, "fact-check standards for thee, but not for me".
Here is a simple idea: Treat everyone to the same standard, and maybe someone will trust the process. No reason to trust? Then other details just don't matter.