Fact checking fact checkers

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
28,166
21,064
Weirdo
Do you have an update for 2019 after the Jan. 20, 2017 swearing-in. I note your source predates that date. Thanks.
:cool:
Indeed. Agreed. Couldn't agree more.

You ever wonder if your source is correct? Any time? All the time?

Ever?

IMO most sources garnish the truth outside of a few who have no skin in the game (ie; foreign sources).

This was proven an issue time and again during the Iraq War post 9/11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the bull59
Jun 2013
18,948
17,040
Here
Also helpful to know who's running these outfits. Factcheck.org for instance.

"The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms"

More importantly, it's helpful for those making claims to be intelligent and know who Walter Annenberg was, instead of pulling facts out of the air about people who spend time researching the truth.

He was FAR from being "liberal" in the sense Trump robots/trolls use the word "liberal".


What's BS are the people who are trying to claim those outing their BS, as telling lies.

One does NOT need a factchecker other than themselves. They only have to have an interest in the truth and take the time to research what is closer to it.

Unless we are present at an event, we are ALL getting our information from OTHERS. Until FOX News, and then Trump, who has a total life history of stretching the truth if not totally lying, the free press was questioned, but only for the veracity of what they were reporting. Trump's own family biographer makes light of his fraud, even speaking of his "getting away with it" as something someone might admire in some sense.



FOX News came up with a business plan that included politicizing the media and set forth to claim all the networks it would be competing with had a political bias. Without saying it, the innuendo to so called "conservatives" was that a "liberal bias" was not presenting the truth to them, thus they turned to FOX News. It is a brilliant plan if all one cared about was seeing your business competitors advertisers have to pay for advertising space on 4 major networks (because they supposedly catered to "liberals") while the same advertisers could reach roughly the same audience by going to only one network (FOX News) because they were the only one in that league that catered to conservatives.



For the purposes of example, when FOX News came online, if the nation was close to being evenly divided between conservatives and liberals, say 50%/50% and the supposed "liberal" news networks in the same league were CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS/NPR and the "conservative" network was FOX News.

If 50% of the nation's audience were tuning in across 4 or 5 networks, no one network was getting any numbers that could match Fox News if it was getting the whole other 50% because at the time, "conservatives" had no other places to go. Rush Limbaugh and some other radio personalities at the time were not the same.

If one is advertising something on TV, they want to reach the largest audience for the buck. This is why there are ratings. As an advertiser, if you only had to buy one set of TV spots to reach 50% of the nation, you would choose that network over having to buy spots on 4 or 5 networks to reach the same audience.

Political bias also has no connection to truth. Truth is truth. People might be drawn to any network or sets of networks because they find them to be credible, before or without considering any poltical affiliation.

In short, most people might be drawn to information (news) outlets because in their experience, they find they present mostly the truth above other networks and they determine this because what they hear or read is largely born out or additional research find what they are reporting to be true.

Other people may be drawn to what they hear because they like its political bias and what they hear, EVEN if it is not born out or what is said is not sourced or found to be founded in anything credible.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
Mar 2015
32,163
17,760
Mad Prophet
Then why is it listed as NEWS? Amounts to LIES. Besides ,many of the false charges they kept yappin' about were proven false. Collusion ,for instance.
"Collusion" was not a charge. You're opinion was that there was none, was just an opinion. Is your opinion a lie?

I cant see how you are saying that it was proven to not happen. That's wacked out - no such thing.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,647
4,516
California
"Collusion" was not a charge. You're opinion was that there was none, was just an opinion. Is your opinion a lie?

I cant see how you are saying that it was proven to not happen. That's wacked out - no such thing.
Mueller report said no collusion. Proves the Media LIED. They didn't say "In my OPINION Mueller would bring down Trump". They said it would happen.Period. Makes it a lie.
 
Jun 2013
18,948
17,040
Here
Mueller report said no collusion. Proves the Media LIED. They didn't say "In my OPINION Mueller would bring down Trump". They said it would happen.Period. Makes it a lie.
There is no statutory crime called "COLLUSION" and only Trump, his shills and trolls have made the claim there was "no collusion". They aren't lying in one sense, but they also are NOT telling the whole truth. One can't commit a crime that is NOT a crime. In addition, Trump was NOT exonerated on the potential charge of "obstruction of justice" which would be a statutory crime (why would Trump have a need to obstruct justice (asking a case to be dropped) unless he felt something was going to be found by an investigation (look what was found (indictments of how many of Trump's associates and on what charges?)). Moreover, Mueller said that based on a long standing DoJ policy the DoJ cannot indict a sitting President and made it clear that there is only one body that can do that when it comes to what would be similar to an "indictment" of the POTUS. Presidents can be indicted by states for the breaking of state laws, but when it comes to actions taken while in office that are unfitting of that office or break statutory federal law, the only avenue is impeachment. The House Democrats have taken up that responsibility, as is their duty and according to the oath of office they and all elected, appointed or hired people of the federal goverment, take, including the POTUS.

What remains to be seen is whether the republican majority in the Senate will choose to act in political partisan ways, showing higher loyalty to their political party and a single politcal figure, than to the Constitution of the U.S.A. or will they behave as those who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic.

If they choose to be partisan, I am unsure of how they are going to defend the man you see and hear talking in the following tapes and they are older videos. He has accumulated a lot more of the same (all in the public record) since.



Caught with his whole arm in the cookie jar, he tries to ignore how BUSTED he was.


Looks like Trump is his own worst enemy, in spite of himself, his shills and his trolls.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
3,814
6,323
Vancouver
CNN uses false info and outright LIES all the time.
That's why they're garbage.

Where do they stand on a modern fact checker?
Indeed. Agreed. Couldn't agree more.

You ever wonder if your source is correct? Any time? All the time?

Ever?

IMO most sources garnish the truth outside of a few who have no skin in the game (ie; foreign sources).

This was proven an issue time and again during the Iraq War post 9/11.
The real media, the professionals, we're screaming from the rooftops post-911 and during the Iraq War. And that's not even mentioning the global outpouring of truth - accumulating in the world's largest protests in human history, tens of millions of people in over a hundred cities on that one record breaking day.

The real, accurate information was EVERYWHERE.

The exact same people and politicians who ignored it then are the exact same people and politicians who now claim that all media is false and that they are al lying.... And point to their own dumb gullibility post-911 to try to prove it.