Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That's the point, it's selectively biased in what version of a claim to "fact-check."


sort by: page size:

Not really. They do have a bias. Regardless of that it's still not fact checking.

I keep seeing allusions to this bias.

Can you point to any mainstream fact checking organizations that are consistently biased and any specific fact checks that illustrate this?


'Fact Check' articles are often just as biased by what studies they cite, whose projections they choose to use, and what information they supress, as any other article.

I would venture to say that the majority of 'Fact Check' articles are more biased than average articles, as they were specifically written to push or to punish a point of view.

I wonder which sources Google will bless with this new trust symbol? Just kidding! We all know.


That is complete and utter nonsense. The version of the claim that's being fact-checked is the one that's shown in the article. Again, unless you have some evidence to suggest that that's been changed nefariously, your criticism is completely without merit.

It seems like the system doesn't actually fact check stuff, it just marks an existing article as a "fact check".

Or to put it in another way, it's "fact check", not "fact checked".


Biased fact checking would be and would be par for the course for many "news" organizations on both sides

"We classified news as true or false using information from six independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95 to 98% agreement on the classifications."

>> What cited sources of truth are overtly biased?


Do "fact checks" include oversights and misleading premises? Would a fact check have caught the bias in a recent NYT article, for instance?

Do you have a link to the fact check?

Not exactly doubting you, but is this really accurate? I hear a lot of "fact checkers are biased marxist commies" coming from people who just don't like it when "their side" is criticised.

Which is silly. At least I can talk about fact checkers in my country: they give you a write-up of all the sources and reasoning they pursued to ascertain the truth of some thing, then add their own evaluation in a scale of true, mostly true, false, pants on fire. How can people say they're biased when they give you a 100% transparent detail of how they came to their conclusion?

Also, it's funny when people say that multi-billion dollar media corporations are biased... towards the left x)


> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.

That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.


All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

Fact-checking can say things like "true but misleading".

> "fact-checking" has been completely subverted to serve the preferred narrative and suppress any heretical thought

I don't think this is correct. In my experience, most online "fact checkers" seem to get it right the great majority of the time.

Can you point to some examples you are thinking of?


Fact-checks don't spread as widely as the original sources.

> Fact checks are biased against conservative views.

This is literally that old joke that "reality has a liberal bias" right? I do agree.


> Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.

Fact checking with partisan media sources does imply picking sides.


> the people verifying [...]

There are opinion pieces thinly disguised as "fact checks".


Irrelevant. Most of the fact check checkers rate it as pretty accurate:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/

next

Legal | privacy