'Impartial' fact-checkers are revealing their partisanship against Trump

Nov 2018
3,702
859
Bel Air, MD
#1
I've been saying this for a long time. Fact-checkers are nothing more than left-wing political opinion sites, designed to convince the follower they are telling the truth. When, in fact, they are biased against Trump and conservatives.




‘Impartial’ fact-checkers are revealing their partisanship against Trump
By David Harsanyi
February 9, 2019 | 12:28pm |


If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statements worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:


Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossings have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.

Even if those numbers are correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would The New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.

If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lot of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.


https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impar...e-revealing-their-partisanship-against-trump/
 
Apr 2014
36,615
23,017
Maryland
#2
I've been saying this for a long time. Fact-checkers are nothing more than left-wing political opinion sites, designed to convince the follower they are telling the truth. When, in fact, they are biased against Trump and conservatives.




‘Impartial’ fact-checkers are revealing their partisanship against Trump
By David Harsanyi
February 9, 2019 | 12:28pm |


If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statements worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:


Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossings have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.

Even if those numbers are correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would The New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.

If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lot of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.


https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impar...e-revealing-their-partisanship-against-trump/
There is something funny and taking something from the New York post as a legitimate “fact check” that paper is a joke , it’s a rightwing rag. But meantime the fact check that you are citing was indeed actual or do you really believe that they are making up things that aren’t true. Are you saying that illegal immigration hasnot declined?Let’s use some common sense here. If these sources were all biased they would be out of business. The New York Times wins more Pulitzer’s and is respected all over the world...Because of its reporting of facts and when it makes mistakes it acknowledges them
 
Feb 2018
587
258
Texas
#3
There is something funny and taking something from the New York post as a legitimate “fact check” that paper is a joke , it’s a rightwing rag. But meantime the fact check that you are citing was indeed actual or do you really believe that they are making up things that aren’t true. Are you saying that illegal immigration hasnot declined?Let’s use some common sense here. If these sources were all biased they would be out of business. The New York Times wins more Pulitzer’s and is respected all over the world...Because of its reporting of facts and when it makes mistakes it acknowledges them
It's respectability is in the tank these days. It's simply another Trump hate rag.
 

Davocrat

Former Staff
Apr 2007
49,085
34,596
Deep State
#4
I've been saying this for a long time. Fact-checkers are nothing more than left-wing political opinion sites, designed to convince the follower they are telling the truth. When, in fact, they are biased against Trump and conservatives.




‘Impartial’ fact-checkers are revealing their partisanship against Trump
By David Harsanyi
February 9, 2019 | 12:28pm |


If media wants to challenge the context and politics of Republican arguments, that’s their prerogative. There are plenty of legitimately misleading statements worthy of fact-checkers’ attention. Yet, with a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers often engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship. And State of Union coverage gave us an abundance of examples of how they do it:


Fact-checking subjective political assertions: The New York Times provided a masterclass in bad faith fact-checking by taking political contentions offered by the president and subjecting them to a supposed impartial test of accuracy. In his speech, Trump called the illegal border crossing “an urgent national crisis.” The New York Times says “this is false.” Why? Because illegal border crossings have been declining for two decades, they say. Customs and Border Protection agents, they go on to explain, had arrested around 50,000 people trying to illegally cross the southwestern border each of the last three months, which was only half of the arrests they had made in comparable months in the mid-2000s.

Even if those numbers are correct, there is no way to fact-check urgency. After all, a lessening crisis doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t a pressing one. We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would The New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.

If I claim that socialism is the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity, I may well be right. I may have a lot of historical and economic evidence to back up my assertion. You can argue that I’m wrong. You can lay out statistics that attempt to prove me wrong. You can call me crazy. But you can’t produce an unbiased “fact-check” establishing that my opinion is conclusively false. You’re just writing an op-ed piece.


https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impar...e-revealing-their-partisanship-against-trump/

No question. Facts hate Trump as much as he hates them.
 
Jan 2015
39,185
10,310
Great State of Texas
#9
We have had many threads here on "Fact Checkers" ....

The rule of thumb is Fact Checking sites are 100% fake news 100% of the time.

I totally ignore them.

They are NEVER worth reading.
 
Nov 2018
3,702
859
Bel Air, MD
#10
There is something funny and taking something from the New York post as a legitimate “fact check” that paper is a joke , it’s a rightwing rag. But meantime the fact check that you are citing was indeed actual or do you really believe that they are making up things that aren’t true. Are you saying that illegal immigration hasnot declined?Let’s use some common sense here. If these sources were all biased they would be out of business. The New York Times wins more Pulitzer’s and is respected all over the world...Because of its reporting of facts and when it makes mistakes it acknowledges them
Your fact-checkers are not fact-checkers. They are left-wingnut resources, that many gullible people use.

Nobody said that illegal immigration hasn't declined, but the statement made by your fact checker is not true.
 

Similar Discussions