╌>

The Troubling Fact Is That Media Fact-Checkers Tend to Lean ← Left

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  4 years ago  •  59 comments

By:   Sharyl Attkisson

The Troubling Fact Is That Media Fact-Checkers Tend to Lean ← Left
the biggest inherent flaw with efforts to fact-check information may lie in the qualifications, bias, and conflicts of interest among the ranks of the fact-checkers themselves.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

That’s the problem with almost all so called fact checking organizations.  They lean way to the left.  They have a bias bordering on bigotry against conservatives, against evangelical Christianity and it’s believers and beliefs, and they have no tolerance for differing views on science on a variety of issues.  They are an amen choir for liberal media and causes.  Most all are associated with and or funded by George Soros through organizations he’s in control of or affiliated with.  The investigative article covers all the biases in media toward different groups and political leaders and how it rates issues and events.  It’s a broken system.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A growing response to today’s chaotic information landscape sounds inviting and elegantly simple: appoint experts to “fact-check” news stories, blogs, speeches, studies, opinions, and political ads. Information they deem to be false is corrected or even removed from public view, in the name of the public good.


George Soros: His progressive Open Society Foundations supports media fact-checking efforts, notably Facebook's .

AP Photo/Ronald Zak


Since Donald Trump’s election these “fact-checkers” have gained increased prominence. Pressure has mounted for news outfits and big tech companies – including Google, Facebook, and Twitter – to police political discourse. At the same time, many people, notably conservatives, are demanding that the tech giants back off such perceived censorship. Tensions on both sides were on display last week as a House Judiciary subcommittee grilled top Silicon Valley executives. 

That discord is likely to persist because in large part the fact-checking solution is illusory. Many such efforts fail because they amount to a circular feedback loop of verification. The fact-checkers are like-minded journalists or often liberal Silicon Valley gatekeepers, who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies. This small group of players exerts an oversized influence, using fact checks to shape and censor information.

Twitter recently sparked controversy by taking the unprecedented step of adding a disapproving “fact-checking label” to some of President Trump’s tweets. The social media site publicly  explained  that Trump’s May 26 posts contained what its fact-checkers deemed to be “potentially misleading information about voting processes.”

Trump had said widespread mail-in ballots in the 2020 election would be “substantially fraudulent.” While the definition of “substantially” is in the eye of the beholder, the United States, in fact, has a long and ongoing history of ballot fraud .

Nevertheless, Twitter’s label warned that Trump’s claims were “unsubstantiated according to CNN, Washington Post, and others … Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”

Like many questionable “fact checks” at issue, Twitter’s critique wasn’t really a fact check at all. It used past reporting from selected partisan news sources to claim that a prediction about what could happen in the future is untrue -- before it even happens or doesn’t happen. It was, in short, a Democratic Party talking point.

Google has stoked criticism for inserting its judgment and opinions between internet users and their search results. In February, the search engine announced it was fighting “disinformation” about coronavirus by  partnering  with the World Health Organization (WHO). Google explained that user searches about COVID-19 would be directed to WHO’s online information. One big problem: WHO itself was  guilty  of factual misinformation in multiple instances. For example, the agency admitted it had wrongly called the global risk of the virus emanating from China virus “ moderate” at a time when it had actually been “very high.”

Critics say the partnership with WHO reflects a trend by Big Tech fact-checkers to present often controversial global organizations as nonpartisan purveyors of objective fact.

Over at Facebook, censorship of accounts and ideas has included a fact check of a documentary about the lab in Wuhan, China, that was under investigation as a possible source of the COVID-19 outbreak. Facebook claimed the documentary was “false.” But an investigation by this reporter revealed that one of the authorities Facebook referenced in discrediting the documentary was a  scientist  who worked at the Wuhan lab.

Facebook did not respond to an emailed request for an interview with CEO Mark Zuckerberg or a representative.

Who’s Pulling Strings and Calling Shots?


Fact-checking organizations have grappled internally with the obvious but usually unspoken challenge in all such efforts: It is unrealistic to expect that any appointed group of fact-checkers has true expertise on all of the topics they litigate. Yet they do so every day.

As the labels applied to the Trump tweets illustrate, today ’s brand of “fact-checking” is rarely cut and dry, such as verifying the date an event occurred. Now, fact checks are frequently used to litigate matters of opinion or debate, and to proclaim the truth about facts that are unknown, or cannot possibly be known, at the time. They commonly provide what they call the “ context” they claim is necessary to assess a factual claim, rather than a simple assessment of whether a statement is correct or incorrect. As a result, many factually correct statements are deemed to be “half true” or “mostly false.”  


Eric Schmidt: Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer -- and former head of Alphabet, whose Google subsidiary ran a fact-checking nonprofit during the 2016 campaign.

AP Photo/Lee Jin-man, File


Keeping this in mind, the biggest inherent flaw with efforts to fact-check information may lie in the qualifications, bias, and conflicts of interest among the ranks of the fact-checkers themselves. One example is the fact-checking nonprofit First Draft , started by Google at the beginning of the 2016 election cycle. Google is owned by  Alphabet , Inc. Alphabet executives and employees comprise a politically active group that ranks among the largest political donors to Democrats in the country. During the 2016 campaign, Alphabet was led by an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer, executive chairman Eric Schmidt .

First Draft is also supported by an array of liberal companies and nonprofits, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. First Draft tends to fact-check topics in a vein that’s consistent with its major donors’ opinions and interests. This is particularly true when it comes to controversies about  vaccine  safety and climate change, where First Draft appears to give little consideration to opposing scientific views and information. In April, First Draft uncritically  referred  readers to an article perpetuating the false story that President Trump had literally  encouraged  “people to drink bleach.” Among the group’s original organizers is its  digital director , Alastair Reid, who has frequently  tweeted  and retweeted  anti -American rhetoric and progressive  positions

For its part, First Draft says “certain projects and initiatives may be guided in part by the specific requirements of our funding partnerships” but “our donors understand that First Draft retains operational and editorial independence. Our decisions are driven by the organization’s mission and values.” 

Similar issues surround NewsGuard , an Internet browser tool that rates the trustworthiness of news sources on search engines and social media sites. Created in 2018, it is funded in part by one of the largest PR, advertising, and data collection firms in the world: Publicis Groupe. Publicis is active on the progressive side of major issues and controversies from gender to race and  climate .


517519_5_.png

Steven Brill: His NewsGuard is funded by Publicis Groupe, which is active on the progressive side of major issues.



NewsGuard  states  that besides its founders Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, “other investors play no role in the determination of ratings.” Its analysts have given a  green light  of trust to openly partisan sources such as Media Matters for America.

Last November, NewsGuard reached out to RealClearInvestigations, questioning its use of anonymous sources to reveal the identity of an intelligence community “whistleblower” whose allegations helped lead to Trump’s impeachment. But when RealClearInvestigations asked NewsGuard if it was posing similar queries about use of anonymous leaks by other news organizations, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, and BuzzFeed, NewsGuard did not reply.

The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining  Facebook’s new  oversight  board, which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts. According to Facebook, members of the oversight board “were chosen for their expertise and diversity” and “must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.” They all “have expertise in, or experience in advocating for, human rights.”

But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook’s oversight board members have ties to Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion, gender, and racial policies.

The pervasive Soros connections on Facebook’s oversight board may be no more than a matter of odds. Soros is such a prolific financier among global groups that advocate for positions he supports, that his name is bound to turn up when the chosen fact checkers are primarily activists and advocates for progressive positions. The result is a group whose expressed viewpoints and causes are far from neutral. By contrast, however, no members of the Facebook board have known public positions on the conservative side of hot-button controversies.

Genesis


One measure of the problems in “ objective” fact-checking is the vastly disparate treatment accorded two of the most established partisan outfits – the conservative Media Research Center and the liberal Media Matters.


517520_5_.png

Brent Bozell: Started the conservative Media Research Center in 1987. The liberal Media Matters, run by David Brock, followed in 2004. They are not treated the same by the so-called objective press.

Gage Skidmore


Founded in 1987 by Brent Bozell, the Media Research Center , characterizes itself as a media watchdog, and uses a blog called “Newsbusters” to call out what it views as liberal bias in the mainstream media.

Media  Matters is a nonprofit founded in 2004 by right-wing operative-turned-left-wing operative David Brock as a counterpoint to Media Research Center. Today, it’s linked to a web of political action committees, nonprofits, LLCs and other groups that partner to advance their agendas in the news.

So the two groups are bookends in the increasingly partisan media landscape. But they are not treated the same by the so-called objective press. The liberal Media Matters is is frequently relied upon by journalism organizations and the mainstream media as if it were an accurate, nonpartisan source of news and information. An extensive search found no such treatment accorded to the Media Research Center. The credibility afforded to Media Matters by some appears to have evolved over time. Back in 2009, the Columbia Journalism Review  called out  Media Matters for a “ falsehood,” citing a deceptive claim and press release. But fast forward to June 4, 2020 and an  article  in the same publication places Media Matters’ “editor-at-large” Parker Molloy among a group of “journalists, legal analysts and other experts” --  without disclosing the controversial group’s partisan affiliation. The article goes on to quote Molloy as claiming there is “honestly no reason to believe there’s some sort of liberal/progressive bias at social-media companies.” He adds, “Conservatives are really just trying to ‘work the refs’ as a way to push these companies into adopting a pro-conservative bias.”

What to Do?


Democrats and Republicans alike have stepped forward to say they have issues with some of today’s fact-checking and censorship efforts ahead of the 2020 election. But they differ on which political side they think has the edge, or what should be done about it. 

Democrats tend to press for more censorship. Republicans are pushing to lift liability protections for social media platforms that engage in heavy-handed tactics to limit or shape content. The Department of Justice recently issued  recommendations  to  reform  the law. It includes ideas to strengthen censorship of content deemed harmful, providing transparency regarding the decisions, and addressing the concentration of information in the hands of just a few. 

Sens. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, recently  introduced  the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, or the PACT Act. It would require Google, Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms to disclose their practices when it comes to how they shape and moderate content. It would also subject them to certain civil lawsuits they are currently exempted from.

On the other hand, eliminating liability protections could result in furthering the public perception that Big Tech is controlling what they are allowed to see and read, as companies could reasonably argue that they would have a heightened obligation to censor even more information due to the risk of being sued.

For now, the trend to “fact-checking” information the public accesses online and on the news is gaining momentum approaching the 2020 election. The evidence indicates the backgrounds and interests of those involved in the effort are serving to complicate rather than purify an increasingly fact-challenged information landscape.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

the biggest inherent flaw with efforts to fact-check information may lie in the qualifications, bias, and conflicts of interest among the ranks of the fact-checkers themselves. One example is the fact-checking nonprofit First Draft , started by Google at the beginning of the 2016 election cycle. Google is owned by  Alphabet , Inc. Alphabet executives and employees comprise a politically active group that ranks among the largest political donors to Democrats in the country. During the 2016 campaign, Alphabet was led by an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer, executive chairman Eric Schmidt .

First Draft is also supported by an array of liberal companies and nonprofits, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. First Draft tends to fact-check topics in a vein that’s consistent with its major donors’ opinions and interests. This is particularly true when it comes to controversies about  vaccine  safety and climate change, where First Draft appears to give little consideration to opposing scientific views and information. In April, First Draft uncritically  referred readers to an article perpetuating the false story that President Trump had literally  encouraged  “people to drink bleach.” Among the group’s original organizers is its  digital director , Alastair Reid, who has frequently tweeted  and retweeted  anti -American rhetoric and progressive  positions

For its part, First Draft says “certain projects and initiatives may be guided in part by the specific requirements of our funding partnerships” but “our donors understand that First Draft retains operational and editorial independence. Our decisions are driven by the organization’s mission and values.” 

Similar issues surround NewsGuard , an Internet browser tool that rates the trustworthiness of news sources on search engines and social media sites. Created in 2018, it is funded in part by one of the largest PR, advertising, and data collection firms in the world: Publicis Groupe. Publicis is active on the progressive side of major issues and controversies from gender to race and  climate .


517519_5_.png

Steven Brill: His NewsGuard is funded by Publicis Groupe, which is active on the progressive side of major issues.

NewsGuard  states  that besides its founders Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, “other investors play no role in the determination of ratings.” Its analysts have given a  green light  of trust to openly partisan sources such as Media Matters for America.

Last November, NewsGuard reached out to RealClearInvestigations, questioning its use of anonymous sources to reveal the identity of an intelligence community “whistleblower” whose allegations helped lead to Trump’s impeachment. But when RealClearInvestigations asked NewsGuard if it was posing similar queries about use of anonymous leaks by other news organizations, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, and BuzzFeed, NewsGuard did not reply.

The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining  Facebook’s new oversight  board, which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts. According to Facebook, members of the oversight board “were chosen for their expertise and diversity” and “must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.” They all “have expertise in, or experience in advocating for, human rights.”

But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook’s oversight board members have ties to Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion, gender, and racial policies.

The pervasive Soros connections on Facebook’s oversight board may be no more than a matter of odds. Soros is such a prolific financier among global groups that advocate for positions he supports, that his name is bound to turn up when the chosen fact checkers are primarily activists and advocates for progressive positions. The result is a group whose expressed viewpoints and causes are far from neutral. By contrast, however, no members of the Facebook board have known public positions on the conservative side of hot-button controversies.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/9455/investigative-issues-the-troubling-fact-is-that-media-fact-checkers-tend-to-lean-left

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago

Truth does have a liberal bias.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  cjcold @1.1    4 years ago

Wrong! See 4.1 for the truth 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.1    4 years ago

Some would rather dispense with the truth. An executive over at MSNBC got fed up with it and resigned just the other day!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    4 years ago

And she went out in style much like Bari Weiss did from the New York Slimes.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2  Gsquared    4 years ago

"Alternative facts" are NOT facts.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gsquared @2    4 years ago

Liberal media bias fact checkers are alternate facts dealers.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

“Fact Checkers” are just pundits.  It’s not 2010 anymore. There’s really no excuse for believing they are objective at this point.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 years ago

They aren’t, haven’t ever been, and never will be objective.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    4 years ago

"The Troubling Fact Is That Media Fact-Checkers Tend To Lean ← Left"

Truth and reality have a liberal bias.

Nothing troubling about that.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4    4 years ago

Speaking of sheer arrogance and conceit....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1    4 years ago

Were we talking about tRump?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    4 years ago

No but I stand by what I said about the ridiculously stupid and blatantly ignorant concept about truth and reality having a liberal bias, make no apology whatsoever for saying it and triple down on my intent of what I said.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.2    4 years ago

TRUTH AND REALITY DO HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.4    4 years ago

"ridiculously stupid and blatantly ignorant"

NOW you're talking about tRump.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.3    4 years ago

LIES AND FANTASY DO HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.4    4 years ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4    4 years ago
Truth and reality have a liberal bias.

Who told you THAT lie?

And why would you believe it?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    4 years ago

Good questions!  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.1    4 years ago

No, they're stupid questions.  

Truth and reality do indeed have a liberal bias.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.2    4 years ago
Truth and reality do indeed have a liberal bias.  

If you are claiming that is your OPINION, fine.

If you are claiming it as FACT, prove it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    4 years ago

No need to prove the truth.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.4    4 years ago
No need to prove the truth.  

And no need to ever prove anything at any time, eh?

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.5    4 years ago

Not when it comes to the secular progressive left, that’s for sure.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.2    4 years ago

No they do not!  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.5    4 years ago

That side of the aisle thinks that they are the truth and need not prove anything they claim

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.4    4 years ago

You need to prove that your viewpoint is the truth and absent that proof it is not the truth

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    4 years ago

I guess her idea of truth is like a religious belief.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4    4 years ago
Truth and reality have a liberal bias.

No.  Truth has no bias.  Moronic bloggers like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News is where the bias comes from.  You would have to be either naive or dim witted to think there isn't any bias in MSM.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3    4 years ago

The lamestream media and their biased fact checkers are the very definition of bias

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    4 years ago

You have a picture of George Soros for this article.

What does George Soros have to do with this?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 years ago

That picture is within the article. Since I know you usually don't open links, here is the caption under the picture for you.............

George Soros: His progressive Open Society Foundations supports media fact-checking efforts, notably Facebook's .

YVVW

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    4 years ago

I didn't read any farther than the ridiculous premise of the seed.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    4 years ago
I didn't read any farther than the ridiculous premise of the seed.  

Oh, we can tell, for sure!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    4 years ago

Fer sure!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.3    4 years ago
Fer sure!

Yes, it was obvious from your Soros question.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    4 years ago

YVVW

Nothing to thank you for.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    4 years ago

What is the premise of the seed? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 years ago
What does George Soros have to do with this?

It is right there in the link.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    4 years ago

Yeah, Jim already said that.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.1    4 years ago
Yeah, Jim already said that.  

Yeah, he did.

And so did I.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    4 years ago

And so did I!  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    4 years ago

And you just said it again 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.3    4 years ago

So you're trolling your own seed.

Awesome!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.4    4 years ago
And you just said it again 

Fer sure!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 years ago

He and his organizations provide funding and or persons to almost all fact checker organizations out there, including the foundation the one used here is affiliated with, along with IFCN, and it was a picture provided by the seeded article.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.3.1  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.3    4 years ago

Thread 5 is locked by Charger 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6  Tacos!    4 years ago

Most of the time, they are just "fact-checking" an opinion. For example, some politician will say something like "the economy is doing great!" And then the fact-checkers will find some metric of their own choosing to "prove" that this claim is "false." It's all nonsense.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6    4 years ago

It’s all nonsense is the bottom line here. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  JBB    4 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @7    4 years ago

The liberal bias of virtually all of the so called bias fact checkers is clear and obvious for all who are objective and rational to see. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

Democrats tend to press for more censorship. Republicans are pushing to lift liability protections for social media platforms that engage in heavy-handed tactics to limit or shape content. The Department of Justice recently issued  recommendations  to  reform the law. It includes ideas to strengthen censorship of content deemed harmful, providing transparency regarding the decisions, and addressing the concentration of information in the hands of just a few. 

Sens. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, recently introduced  the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, or the PACT Act. It would require Google, Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms to disclose their practices when it comes to how they shape and moderate content. It would also subject them to certain civil lawsuits they are currently exempted from.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/9455/investigative-issues-the-troubling-fact-is-that-media-fact-checkers-tend-to-lean-left#cm1376608

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8    4 years ago

Democrats to tend to press for and rely on censorship of opposition ideas rather than to actually be required to do the research to defend their own position.  After all why play defense when you can use content control tools to shut up opposing ideas?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

And Facebook removed something as basic as this: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reclaimthenet.org/facebook-deletes-pro-police-back-the-blue-event-page/amp/

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9    4 years ago

The big social media are becoming more blatant than ever before in their liberal bias in the lead up to this election.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10  Sparty On    4 years ago

The sad part is, some loons on the left really do believe truth has a liberal bias and when they admit as much, they expose their extreme bias AGAINST real truth.

Now THAT is very true and very ironic.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 years ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifExactly.  You got it right here.  Well said. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 

Who is online



Drinker of the Wry
Vic Eldred
Eat The Press Do Not Read It


61 visitors