Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers | Hacker News Reader

Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers

gurwinder.substack.com

7 pointspaulpauper4 comments

I was expecting a more objective evaluation of fact-checkers (ie, how often do they actually get things right or not). The reader is treated to a couple of anecdotes about egregious mistakes, and the implied conclusion is that no one is interested in improving fact-checking because it is merely a political tool. Yet the author dismisses the one objective study he cites about bias in fact-checking (from 2011 (!), which found the vast majority of statements classified as false by Politico were by Republicans [1]) because, well, who knows whether they were actually false or whether Politico is just biased.

It is not impossible to have objective fact-checking, and it would be very beneficial to start having that discussion right now. No one is perfect and it is difficult to handle your personal biases, but I could live without this attitude of "the other side also does it, therefore it's all 'political', so it's a wash".

[1] https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/02/10/selection-bias-...

It's a kind of reverse clickbait, sounds serious and boring, but really just the same old.

A very good article on highlighting the bias and blindspots in these so-called 'fact-checkers' that have knowingly distorted and suppressed parts of the truth and slanting the opposing side with their own lies and the article precisely gives the answer to the question on 'who checks the fact checkers?'; it is each of us and it is up to us to call out the bias or blindspots with multiple counter-evidence.

Only we have to provide multiple sources from all sides to re-verify their own fact-checking in order to eliminate and reduce the extreme bias found with today's 'fact-checkers'.

One source is not enough and all sides paint the full story as described in this article.

> A very good article

It’s really not. spupe’s criticisms are spot-on.

And with lines like the following, who could expect a real critique?

“Fact-checking, far from the scientific pursuit of truth, has become a Trojan horse by which liberal elites can serve us all propaganda by disguising it as education.”

I mean come on. I don’t think it’s intended to be taken seriously.

> highlighting the bias and blindspots in these so-called 'fact-checkers' that have knowingly distorted and suppressed parts of the truth and slanting the opposing side with their own lies

Where is that in the article?

> the article precisely gives the answer to the question on 'who checks the fact checkers?'; it is each of us and it is up to us to call out the bias or blindspots with multiple counter-evidence.

Go for it! I’d definitely be interested to read the counter-evidence. And I think so would everyone else who keeps hearing that fact-checking is, in actuality, a Trojan horse by which liberal elites can serve us all propaganda by disguising it as education.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com