Years ago I was friends with a woman who was paid to create positive content online about people who had been accused of crimes or otherwise involved in scandals. Her “newer” content would push the negative press further down into the search results so most people would not see it. I learned then how games of perception are played on the internet.
This brings me to fact-checking sites. It pains me when people use them as definitive “proof” regarding a topic under dispute, as my impression is that fact checkers are a bunch of underpaid twentysomethings being directed by corporations to churn out content defending certain narratives. This example from “truthorfiction” in particular made me roll my eyes: The claim looked a bit questionable right off the bat. In March 2020, Dr. Fauci rapidly became a household name (and later something of a scapegoat); were he so critical and loathsome in the plot of a high-profile film like Dallas Buyers Club, it seemed likely that circumstance would have already entered the discussion in the intervening year and a half between March 2020 and December 2021. In other words, none of the characters in DallasBuyersClub could possibly be based on Anthony Fauci because that claim hadn’t been brought up before. That’s the “fact check.”
Moreover, a little bit of digging reveals conflicts of interests with some of the major fact-checking sites. For example, Reuters has ties to Pfizer and Factcheck to Johnson & Johnson. There are also claims that some fact-checking sites are funded by pro-Russia propaganda outlets.
The Alliance for Natural Health offers some helpful take-homes when it comes to fact-checking sites. Although they are focused on Covid-19 protocols these tips could apply more broadly:
Don’t trust the fact checkers if you want facts
Be aware that important missing facts are rife on ‘fact checking’ sites, including ones that might save your life
Recognise that a lot of information on Covid-19 is not as black and white as some people and organisations like to make out. There is huge uncertainty over it, and the evidence is a moving feast. Also, complex diseases often require complex protocols, so just because one trial says one nutrient (or drug) doesn't work in isolation, it doesn't mean it doesn't work in combination therapy.
Follow the money – understand who benefits from the rapidly expanding, pseudo-fact-checking racket, with many organisations having a clear conflicts of interest with the 'fact checkers' on which they rely
Build your knowledge and understanding around Covid-19 by harvesting, deliberating and interrogating information from multiple websites and other information sources, especially those that are based on known facts, existing evidence, plausible rationales – yes, science.
Pre-pandemic I installed Newsguard on some staff and public computers where I worked. I try to look at all these sites as pieces of "additional information" as opposed to the "final word." Unfortunately one has to do a lot of work these days to try to suss out the truth!
I don't have any opinion on the practical question of whether Newsguard should be installed on staff or public computers in libraries. But as to whether it's a reliable tool, I think the key question to ask yourselves is why you should trust your own mistrust of it in the face of all the researchers who use it: https://www.newsguardtech.com/industries/researchers/
Which goes to the topic of this blog post. From a cursory glance at some of the research on the accuracy of mainstream media fact-checker sites, it seems they are by and large reliable (which, admittedly, doesn't address a separate concern about the selectivity of what gets 'checked'). If that's the case, it seems epistemically prudent to suppress the urge to 'think for oneself' and simply defer to whatever convergence one finds among multiple mainstream media fact-checker sites.
UPDATE: I just glancingly visited the "Children's Health Defense" website linked above, and the first thing I see is a photo of notorious anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which to my mind (1) severely undermines the credibility of this blog post and (2) increases my confidence in Newsguard as a reliable tool.
I know a lot of people immediately write off RFK, Jr. but I find it is usually a knee-jerk reaction and they haven't actually read any of his work. The MSM has done a good job of tainting him so that people will not actually consider any of his points.
What do you think about the funding of these fact-checking sites and the potential conflicts of interest?
Another one --
Newsguard-- look a advisory board.
https://www.newsguardtech.com/
And FTX was a major contributor to Semafor.
Yes I have read things about Newsguard as well, such as: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/big-pharma-newsguard-fact-checking-schools/
Pre-pandemic I installed Newsguard on some staff and public computers where I worked. I try to look at all these sites as pieces of "additional information" as opposed to the "final word." Unfortunately one has to do a lot of work these days to try to suss out the truth!
I don't have any opinion on the practical question of whether Newsguard should be installed on staff or public computers in libraries. But as to whether it's a reliable tool, I think the key question to ask yourselves is why you should trust your own mistrust of it in the face of all the researchers who use it: https://www.newsguardtech.com/industries/researchers/
Which goes to the topic of this blog post. From a cursory glance at some of the research on the accuracy of mainstream media fact-checker sites, it seems they are by and large reliable (which, admittedly, doesn't address a separate concern about the selectivity of what gets 'checked'). If that's the case, it seems epistemically prudent to suppress the urge to 'think for oneself' and simply defer to whatever convergence one finds among multiple mainstream media fact-checker sites.
UPDATE: I just glancingly visited the "Children's Health Defense" website linked above, and the first thing I see is a photo of notorious anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which to my mind (1) severely undermines the credibility of this blog post and (2) increases my confidence in Newsguard as a reliable tool.
I know a lot of people immediately write off RFK, Jr. but I find it is usually a knee-jerk reaction and they haven't actually read any of his work. The MSM has done a good job of tainting him so that people will not actually consider any of his points.
What do you think about the funding of these fact-checking sites and the potential conflicts of interest?