Factcheck/Snopes bias

[jonks]

If you have a quote they used innacurately or without context, post it.
If you have a statistical interpretation they massaged, post it.
If you have a fact they got wrong, post it.

Humans maintain the site; the above are not impossible situations.

But stop with the "they're biased" claims when the only "evidence/proof" being that someone once knew someone who worked with someone who got money from someone that knew X candidate. It's childish, juvenile, and damaging to the the search for truth.

I'm not advocating blind adherence. I'm not saying you cannot question their results or articles. I'm simply saying that before you call their integrity into question, you had damn well do better than "IMO they are in the tank for X." Factcheck was good enough for Cheney, they should be good enough for you. Snopes smacked down Michael Moore so hard for Farenheit 9/11 untruths that they decided to apologize for their tone.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts."

Damn straight.

 

[nageov3t]

damn, why is jonks such a biased hack? :roll:

I don't really think the sites themselves are biased, though the readers certainly might be. I have no doubt that a republican might eagerly devour every article looking into Obama speeches and spam the forums with them while at the same time, ignoring everything about any of McCain's speeches (or, as tends to be the case, vice versa)

 

[evident]

the only bias i see are the people posting in my factcheck thread claiming it to be ultra liberal because there are "journalists"... yet can they refute any of the observations factcheck makes about the mccain ads???!?!?!?!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: evident
the only bias i see are the people posting in my factcheck thread claiming it to be ultra liberal because there are "journalists"... yet can they refute any of the observations factcheck makes about the mccain ads???!?!?!?!

QFT! :thumbsup:

 

[eleison]

How hard is a google search for the OP... here's just one link i found in a whole 2 seconds of googling:

http://markschmitt.typepad.com...8/factcheckorg_st.html

For the mentally impaired, search on google for "factcheck.org biases"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: evident
the only bias i see are the people posting in my factcheck thread claiming it to be ultra liberal because there are "journalists"... yet can they refute any of the observations factcheck makes about the mccain ads???!?!?!?!

Distorting McCain's Remarks
Obama makes misleading claims about ethics legislation they ding McCain in that one too.
Obama distorts McCains record onthe DHL deal
Obama: he stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them
Obama wrong about McCain's support for loans for the auto industry

 

[StageLeft]

I just factchecked jonks and the article on factcheck is titled "Gets it mostly right but leaves a few clarifying points out." No, I don't have a link right now.

 

[ProfJohn]

Factcheck is FAR from perfect, but I think they do a good job for the most part.

They should be viewed as another source, but not THE source when it comes to determining the truth.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Factcheck is FAR from perfect, but I think they do a good job for the most part.

They should be viewed as another source, but not THE source when it comes to determining the truth.

i agree, im not saying it's "THE" source as of course i'll check other places too, but if you look in my thread people are slamming it as completely biased.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Factcheck is FAR from perfect, but I think they do a good job for the most part.

They should be viewed as another source, but not THE source when it comes to determining the truth.

IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Factcheck is FAR from perfect, but I think they do a good job for the most part.

They should be viewed as another source, but not THE source when it comes to determining the truth.

No, they are not the final word on what is true, but they are also not "just another source." There exists a hierarchy in evidence. A video of an event will provide more truth than an eyewitnesses memory of the same event. One is colored by the witness, the other is not. Similarly, a Factcheck article is researched, meticulously footnoted and cited, contacts the subjects of the article personally to verify facts and clarify interpretations. No one says it is perfect, but as far as independent analysis of both party's claims and ads go, it is not FAR from perfect. It is, rather, as close to perfect as we are likely to get. Besides developing an artificial intelligence devoid of any emotion, preference or affiliation, what could they do to improve?

Again, the point is accusations of bias are fatal to a site based on neutrality, like accusing a teacher of pedophilia or any man of rape. Such accusations are almost impossible to remove the stigma from, so if you are going to make such an accusation, back it up.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

What assumptions do they make? As for the editorializing, they do it equally in all articles about both candidates. It also makes the articles fun/interesting to read. A boring reiteration of pure facts in an article is something no one wants to read, and an unread article is a useless article.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

What assumptions do they make? As for the editorializing, they do it equally in all articles about both candidates. It also makes the articles fun/interesting to read. A boring reiteration of pure facts in an article is something no one wants to read, and an unread article is a useless article.

Uh, the point is, once one starts injecting opinion/editorializing into a "fact" report it no longer becomes a "fact" report. I don't care if they editorialize but once they do, they allow for personal bias to enter into the report. They may try to keep it straight but it may not always happen that way.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

What assumptions do they make? As for the editorializing, they do it equally in all articles about both candidates. It also makes the articles fun/interesting to read. A boring reiteration of pure facts in an article is something no one wants to read, and an unread article is a useless article.

Uh, the point is, once one starts injecting opinion/editorializing into a "fact" report it no longer becomes a "fact" report. I don't care if they editorialize but once they do, they allow for personal bias to enter into the report. They may try to keep it straight but it may not always happen that way.

The editorializing that they do is about the relative accuracy of the claims, not about the virtues of the policies the claims are about. Since they are an organization dedicated to checking facts and determining the truth of statements, I believe that their comments on it is certainly appropriate.

Keep trying to find bias though. Keeeeep trying!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

What assumptions do they make? As for the editorializing, they do it equally in all articles about both candidates. It also makes the articles fun/interesting to read. A boring reiteration of pure facts in an article is something no one wants to read, and an unread article is a useless article.

Uh, the point is, once one starts injecting opinion/editorializing into a "fact" report it no longer becomes a "fact" report. I don't care if they editorialize but once they do, they allow for personal bias to enter into the report. They may try to keep it straight but it may not always happen that way.

The editorializing that they do is about the relative accuracy of the claims, not about the virtues of the policies the claims are about. Since they are an organization dedicated to checking facts and determining the truth of statements, I believe that their comments on it is certainly appropriate.

Keep trying to find bias though. Keeeeep trying!

:roll: keep trolling keep trolling. :roll:

It makes ZERO difference that you think the editorializing is only on the "relative accuracy" - it still allows their opinions to be injected. Sorry if you can't handle that FACT.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

What assumptions do they make? As for the editorializing, they do it equally in all articles about both candidates. It also makes the articles fun/interesting to read. A boring reiteration of pure facts in an article is something no one wants to read, and an unread article is a useless article.

Uh, the point is, once one starts injecting opinion/editorializing into a "fact" report it no longer becomes a "fact" report. I don't care if they editorialize but once they do, they allow for personal bias to enter into the report. They may try to keep it straight but it may not always happen that way.

The editorializing that they do is about the relative accuracy of the claims, not about the virtues of the policies the claims are about. Since they are an organization dedicated to checking facts and determining the truth of statements, I believe that their comments on it is certainly appropriate.

Keep trying to find bias though. Keeeeep trying!

:roll: keep trolling keep trolling. :roll:

It makes ZERO difference that you think the editorializing is only on the "relative accuracy" - it still allows their opinions to be injected. Sorry if you can't handle that FACT.

Trolling? Do you even know what the term means? If you don't want a website based around checking facts telling you what they consider to be the most factual thing out there, then by all means go somewhere else. The fact that people don't want this is mind boggling to me.

 

[Farang]

This whining of "bias" comes from those whose entrenched partisan ideologies aren't consistent with the facts, so they blame the person telling them the facts (which means that person is directly contradicting their ideas and must be opposed to them, or biased).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

What assumptions do they make? As for the editorializing, they do it equally in all articles about both candidates. It also makes the articles fun/interesting to read. A boring reiteration of pure facts in an article is something no one wants to read, and an unread article is a useless article.

Uh, the point is, once one starts injecting opinion/editorializing into a "fact" report it no longer becomes a "fact" report. I don't care if they editorialize but once they do, they allow for personal bias to enter into the report. They may try to keep it straight but it may not always happen that way.

The editorializing that they do is about the relative accuracy of the claims, not about the virtues of the policies the claims are about. Since they are an organization dedicated to checking facts and determining the truth of statements, I believe that their comments on it is certainly appropriate.

Keep trying to find bias though. Keeeeep trying!

:roll: keep trolling keep trolling. :roll:

It makes ZERO difference that you think the editorializing is only on the "relative accuracy" - it still allows their opinions to be injected. Sorry if you can't handle that FACT.

Trolling? Do you even know what the term means? If you don't want a website based around checking facts telling you what they consider to be the most factual thing out there, then by all means go somewhere else. The fact that people don't want this is mind boggling to me.

Hey look more BS...

Have you even read my posts? Obviously not. Here, let me quote what I posted earlier.

IMO, their problem is that they allow themselves too much editorializing/assuming to go on in their fact-checking. If they just presented the facts and the facts only - it would be a much better organization and source.

 

[PokerGuy]

As soon as one starts inserting opinion into it, it's no longer objective facts, and thus more subject to bias. It's less biased than most typical hackery sites, but there is bias included.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As soon as one starts inserting opinion into it, it's no longer objective facts, and thus more subject to bias. It's less biased than most typical hackery sites, but there is bias included.

Please show examples of this bias.

EDIT: Come on people, we have several people here all saying that it's biased. Surely among all of you you can find a single time. (hell, I bet I could find a time if I looked) The thing is when you are repeatedly challenged on this and can't provide ANY backup whatsoever what it shows is that you've taken this opinion from someone else instead of formulating it yourself.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As soon as one starts inserting opinion into it, it's no longer objective facts, and thus more subject to bias. It's less biased than most typical hackery sites, but there is bias included.

Please show examples of this bias.

EDIT: Come on people, we have several people here all saying that it's biased. Surely among all of you you can find a single time. (hell, I bet I could find a time if I looked) The thing is when you are repeatedly challenged on this and can't provide ANY backup whatsoever what it shows is that you've taken this opinion from someone else instead of formulating it yourself.

Google is your friend. It's not that complicated. Search for "factcheck.org bias", and there are plenty of examples.

Funny thing is that you simply can't understand the fact that inserting opinion is virtually guaranteed to include at least some bias.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As soon as one starts inserting opinion into it, it's no longer objective facts, and thus more subject to bias. It's less biased than most typical hackery sites, but there is bias included.

Please show examples of this bias.

EDIT: Come on people, we have several people here all saying that it's biased. Surely among all of you you can find a single time. (hell, I bet I could find a time if I looked) The thing is when you are repeatedly challenged on this and can't provide ANY backup whatsoever what it shows is that you've taken this opinion from someone else instead of formulating it yourself.

Google is your friend. It's not that complicated. Search for "factcheck.org bias", and there are plenty of examples.

Funny thing is that you simply can't understand the fact that inserting opinion is virtually guaranteed to include at least some bias.

Funny that you can't understand the site would be completely and utterly useless without it. When someone says "I cut taxes for Americans." and they cut taxes once, but raised them 10 times, is that a true statement? Technically yes. Substantively? No. So if you're going to accurately assess what the person said, you need to make qualifying remarks, necessitating judgment. Politicians are very careful to rarely outright lie, they frequently distort the truth however. To think that you can just make it a 'check yes for fact and no for lie' is ridiculous.

As far as "google being my friend", I didn't make the accusations and so I don't need to go find anything to prove/disprove your points. Yet again right wingers on here make insane statements and then try and get me to go spend my time to disprove them. That's not how the world works friend.

My prediction is that sooner or later someone will link to a right wing blog of some sort that will complain about factcheck.org and consider that 'proof' of bias. What's taking so long?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As soon as one starts inserting opinion into it, it's no longer objective facts, and thus more subject to bias. It's less biased than most typical hackery sites, but there is bias included.

Please show examples of this bias.

EDIT: Come on people, we have several people here all saying that it's biased. Surely among all of you you can find a single time. (hell, I bet I could find a time if I looked) The thing is when you are repeatedly challenged on this and can't provide ANY backup whatsoever what it shows is that you've taken this opinion from someone else instead of formulating it yourself.

Google is your friend. It's not that complicated. Search for "factcheck.org bias", and there are plenty of examples.

Funny thing is that you simply can't understand the fact that inserting opinion is virtually guaranteed to include at least some bias.

Funny that you can't understand the site would be completely and utterly useless without it. When someone says "I cut taxes for Americans." and they cut taxes once, but raised them 10 times, is that a true statement? Technically yes. Substantively? No. So if you're going to accurately assess what the person said, you need to make qualifying remarks, necessitating judgment. Politicians are very careful to rarely outright lie, they frequently distort the truth however. To think that you can just make it a 'check yes for fact and no for lie' is ridiculous.

As far as "google being my friend", I didn't make the accusations and so I don't need to go find anything to prove/disprove your points. Yet again right wingers on here make insane statements and then try and get me to go spend my time to disprove them. That's not how the world works friend.

My prediction is that sooner or later someone will link to a right wing blog of some sort that will complain about factcheck.org and consider that 'proof' of bias. What's taking so long?

I won't link to anything, do your own homework. And yes, just the facts by themselves are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that bias creeps in when you allow opinion and context into the mix. And no matter how much you'd like to deny it, bias does creep in. Why is this such a problem for you to acknowledge?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

I won't link to anything, do your own homework. And yes, just the facts by themselves are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that bias creeps in when you allow opinion and context into the mix. And no matter how much you'd like to deny it, bias does creep in. Why is this such a problem for you to acknowledge?

Okay, so long as you are admitting you are making accusations without evidence I'm fine with that.

I guess I'm just trying to understand your argument because at this point it seems breathtakingly inane. You admit that the facts alone would be useless, but then complain about bias when the facts are given the context needed. So, fundamentally you are complaining about the basic conditions required for rational discourse.

That's awesome.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

I won't link to anything, do your own homework. And yes, just the facts by themselves are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that bias creeps in when you allow opinion and context into the mix. And no matter how much you'd like to deny it, bias does creep in. Why is this such a problem for you to acknowledge?

Okay, so long as you are admitting you are making accusations without evidence I'm fine with that.

I guess I'm just trying to understand your argument because at this point it seems breathtakingly inane. You admit that the facts alone would be useless, but then complain about bias when the facts are given the context needed. So, fundamentally you are complaining about the basic conditions required for rational discourse.

That's awesome.

Breathtakingly inane only if you are too breathtakingly dense to understand simple concepts. Introducing opinion means bias can creep in. They've actually done a pretty good job of not allowing it to get too bad, but it's there nonetheless. You just can't comprehend that there is no "objective" measure to such a bias, so there's no evidence to be brought. If you want objective evidence, stick to science. Otherwise, just realize that there is bias in political reporting and move on.

 

[ericlp]

want some facts?

here ya go...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...n_el_pr/cvn_fact_check