The problem with "fact checkers".

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Feb 2022, 10:18 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Brictoria wrote:

Context matters if you are doing a "context check" - If you are doing a fact check, you are looking at the claim and comparing whether the facts support it (the hint is in the name).

To read any news without considering the context is asking to be mislead.

There is, thus, no difference between a context and a fact check. Facts cannot be understood without context.

Statement to be "fact checked":
Someone provided X for reason Y.

To objectively confirm or deny the facts, the questions you would ask are from this are (simple, yes/no questions):
Did the person provide X?
Did the person state reason Y as a reason for this?

The fact they supplied items A, B, and C as well does not detract from the fact that they also provided item X (the statement being checked does not claim to be determining if the person solely provided X, so the provision of additional items has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim) - Did they provide item X (yes or no)?

The fact that there were additional reasons R, S, and T for providing the items does not detract from the fact that reason Y was a reason for doing so (again, the statement being "fact checked" makes no mention of it being the sole reason, so additional reasons do not detract from reason Y being a reason for the actions) - Did they state "Y" as a reason for doing so (yes or no)?

From these questions, we can come to a conclusion as to the truth (or otherwise) of the statement being checked...

Claiming something is "false" while at the same time demonstrating that the item was being provided by the person, and the reasons for this included the reason being "fact checked" shows the "fact checkers" are not interested in facts, but rather in "narrative".

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

09 Feb 2022, 10:19 pm

Dox47 wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

Are you assuming that people who read it can't understand the meaning of the context the article provides and, thus, will end up with the wrong impression?

Isn't that your rationale for wanting to crack down on "disinformation", the assumption that all these morons who aren't you are too stupid to know any better unless lead by the nose?

Aren't we talking about people who've actually gone in search of additional details by choosing to look at the fact checks? In other words, the group of readers in this case starts skeptical. You don't think that reality changes the equation?

Nor have I ever called average readers morons. People have busy lives and have to apply filters and make choices, I get that; it isn't a statement on their intelligence. Which is why I get angry at intentional disinformation.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Feb 2022, 10:22 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Not when theses "fact checks" are routinely pasted over posts and stories that run counter to the preferred official line. Also, your argument extends to people like Rogan viewers who are extremely skeptical, which I suspect is not who you're talking about here.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

09 Feb 2022, 10:24 pm

Brictoria wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

Brictoria wrote:

Context matters if you are doing a "context check" - If you are doing a fact check, you are looking at the claim and comparing whether the facts support it (the hint is in the name).

To read any news without considering the context is asking to be mislead.

There is, thus, no difference between a context and a fact check. Facts cannot be understood without context.

They didn't say "false." They said "mostly false."

I care about what is in the fact check article much more than the title. If the information in the article is complete, then readers have all they need to make their own decisions, just like you did.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Feb 2022, 10:32 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Nor have I ever called average readers morons. People have busy lives and have to apply filters and make choices, I get that; it isn't a statement on their intelligence. Which is why I get angry at intentional disinformation.

I'm amplifying the implications of what you say; you don't seem to realize that you're doing it, and it relates to our recent conversations regarding the condescension of Blue America that you seem intent on downplaying or denying. What makes you so sure it's not you who is swimming in disinformation rather than the people you think you're protecting from it?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Feb 2022, 10:33 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

They didn't say "false." They said "mostly false."

But it wasn't false at all, it was entirely true. Besides, are you really trying to argue that a misleading headline is fine?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

09 Feb 2022, 10:44 pm

Dox47 wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

They didn't say "false." They said "mostly false."

But it wasn't false at all, it was entirely true. Besides, are you really trying to argue that a misleading headline is fine?

I said in my earlier post that choosing between a limited set of conclusion phrases is a fuzzy process. They aren't "headlines" so much as check the box summaries or conclusions. To me, they choose one that encouraged viewers to read further. It probably wasn't the "best" choice, but what matters more, IMHO, is the content of the article. I already explained the variables I saw and how I felt about them. This is nothing like a first read article headline. This is specific to someone already choosing to fact check.

You are trying to demand a precision of language that I would find limiting in nearly all fact check circumstances. I don't see news and political statements as issues that should be evaluated on a stand alone basis. I always looked for the context when Trump put his foot in his mouth, too. To me, it matters. It always matters, regardless of the truth on one sentence. So choosing any headline that pushed readers into the article was, to me, better than choosing between true and false.

I don't like being quoted out of context, so why would I believe it is OK to do so to anyone?

I get that our opinions are going to continue to differ on this. So be it. I've said my piece.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Feb 2022, 11:03 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Brictoria wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

Brictoria wrote:

Context matters if you are doing a "context check" - If you are doing a fact check, you are looking at the claim and comparing whether the facts support it (the hint is in the name).

To read any news without considering the context is asking to be mislead.

There is, thus, no difference between a context and a fact check. Facts cannot be understood without context.

Most people simply look at the claim and the verdict (which is why this is made so flashy and shown before the explanation as to how it was arrived at), and the sites which make use of these to police what is permitted (like facebook in the article in the initial post of the thread) don't provide\utilise anything more than the verdict, preventing those who see the article the possibility of confirming whether the claim is accurate or not...

And what is "mostly false", where the site which is "fact checking" the statement "person A provided item X for reason Y", then clearly state in their explanation as to how they reached their verdict that "person A did provide item X", and "a reason for doing so was reason Y"?

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Feb 2022, 1:33 am

DW_a_mom wrote:

You are trying to demand a precision of language that I would find limiting in nearly all fact check circumstances.

How much "precision of language" is required to answer a true or false question? Did Biden fund a program that would distribute free crack pipes in the name of racial equity? Yes, yes he did, and the additional context that it was part of a larger bill attempting to do harm reduction is clarifying, but it doesn't change the fact that what was being claimed, "Biden funds crack pipes for racial equity" was 100% true and the "fact checker" rated it as "mostly false" regardless.

Do you not realize that this sort of linguistic tap-dancing you're engaging in to avoid admitting that a very well known "fact checker" blatantly lied about something that was embarrassing to Biden is precisely the sort of thing that breeds distrust and contempt? Did Biden fund the program, yes or no? Did the program do what was claimed, yes or no? Was racial equity cited as a rationale for the program, yes or no? Context is good, but when the answers to all 3 of those questions was "yes" and the headline says "mostly false", how am I supposed to treat that?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

10 Feb 2022, 2:10 am

Dox47 wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

You are trying to demand a precision of language that I would find limiting in nearly all fact check circumstances.

How much "precision of language" is required to answer a true or false question? Did Biden fund a program that would distribute free crack pipes in the name of racial equity? Yes, yes he did, and the additional context that it was part of a larger bill attempting to do harm reduction is clarifying, but it doesn't change the fact that what was being claimed, "Biden funds crack pipes for racial equity" was 100% true and the "fact checker" rated it as "mostly false" regardless.

Do you not realize that this sort of linguistic tap-dancing you're engaging in to avoid admitting that a very well known "fact checker" blatantly lied about something that was embarrassing to Biden is precisely the sort of thing that breeds distrust and contempt? Did Biden fund the program, yes or no? Did the program do what was claimed, yes or no? Was racial equity cited as a rationale for the program, yes or no? Context is good, but when the answers to all 3 of those questions was "yes" and the headline says "mostly false", how am I supposed to treat that?

It is only a blatant lie if the conclusion says "false" without inviting further reading, and if the article fails to include the appropriate facts. Would you have been satisfied if the verdict had been "mostly true?" That would have worked for me, since it also would invite further reading.

I've never said "mostly false" wasn't misleading, and I'm not making excuses for that. What I'm not interested in is obsessing over if a fact checker choose the best conclusion when further reading was clearly invited. I was similarly nonchalant about some of the claims against Trump; our politicians give us plenty of more important items to obsess over.

The first thing I wrote was "What I care most about is that fact checkers want to be accurate, even when inconvenient. Perfection simply isn't possible." I realize the charge is that the handling of these articles is evidence of them not trying, but to me its offset by all the necessary information being in the article. An article that the conclusion clearly expects you to read. So they could have done better, but they didn't miss the boat, either. But since I'm just repeating myself, time for me to leave it.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Feb 2022, 2:21 am

DW_a_mom wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

You are trying to demand a precision of language that I would find limiting in nearly all fact check circumstances.

How much "precision of language" is required to answer a true or false question? Did Biden fund a program that would distribute free crack pipes in the name of racial equity? Yes, yes he did, and the additional context that it was part of a larger bill attempting to do harm reduction is clarifying, but it doesn't change the fact that what was being claimed, "Biden funds crack pipes for racial equity" was 100% true and the "fact checker" rated it as "mostly false" regardless.

Do you not realize that this sort of linguistic tap-dancing you're engaging in to avoid admitting that a very well known "fact checker" blatantly lied about something that was embarrassing to Biden is precisely the sort of thing that breeds distrust and contempt? Did Biden fund the program, yes or no? Did the program do what was claimed, yes or no? Was racial equity cited as a rationale for the program, yes or no? Context is good, but when the answers to all 3 of those questions was "yes" and the headline says "mostly false", how am I supposed to treat that?

Mostly true suggests there was a small problem with the statement (as written) being checked, but that it is otherwise correct.
Mostly false suggests there were major problems with the statement (as written) being checked, with only a small portion being accurate.

Given each portion of the statement (as written) being checked were objectively true, what would justify "fact checking" it in a manner which suggests that the statement included just a sliver of truth which was all that prevented a "false" declaration?

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

11 Feb 2022, 12:05 am

FairyFox
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 10 Feb 2022
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 47

11 Feb 2022, 12:52 am

nowadays, one can safely assume that so called fact checking is just a fancy name and window dressing for ole good censorship.

The_Znof
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,133
Location: Vancouver Canada

11 Feb 2022, 11:42 pm

The BMJ has locked horns with Facebook and the gatekeepers of international fact checking after one of its investigations was wrongly labelled with “missing context” and censored on the world’s largest social network.

Rebecca Coombes and Madlen Davies report

read more: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

The problem with "fact checkers". Post Reply New Topic

The problem with "fact checkers".