Checking liberals and Democrats is apparently not listed among their job duties
By Fox News•
Now that the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings are complete, we have collected another fascinating exhibit of the leftist tilt of “independent fact-checkers.” Just try to find a single fact check on anything Jackson said. Try to find a single evaluation of any statement by a Democratic politician touting Jackson — from President Joe Biden to Dick Durbin and on down.
Checking liberals and Democrats is apparently not listed among their job duties.
On March 28, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates addressed Jackson’s qualifications. Bates claimed what speaks to the strength of her public record “is the multitude of fact checks from the press, from retired judges and from former prosecutors who have dismantled attacks brought by a small group of GOP senators.”
“Dismantling” Republican critiques is the job of the Fact Check community? That’s what it looks like.
Bates applauded the nation’s largest Democrat rags for their efforts. He touted The Washington Post Fact Checker article by Glenn Kessler titled “These Trump Judges Failed Hawley’s Sentencing Test for Jackson.” He also cited New York Times fact-checker Linda Qiu’s article, titled “Critics of Jackson’s Child Sex Abuse Sentences Backed Judges with Similar Records.”
FILE –The Washington Post has published at least 18 negative opinion headlines about Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin in roughly three weeks and an editorial cartoon even portrayed him in a “dunce” cap. (ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden press aide correctly noted, “This was all on top of a raft of other fact checks already establishing that the basis of these criticisms was dishonest.” Democrats can float on a raft of “fact checks” attempting to censor or downgrade the reach of Republicans.
The targeting tilt was unanimous.
The Associated Press team offered three “checks” with a self-evident aggression: “Republicans twist Jackson’s judicial record,” “Republicans skew Jackson’s record on crime” and “Senators misrepresent Jackson on abortion.” Why they left “Republican” out of the third one is anyone’s guess.
Reuters offered two “fact checks” defending Jackson, claiming that it was “missing context” when she attacked loud anti-abortion protesters and that it was “misleading” to say she accused President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld of being “war criminals” when she complained terror suspects were tortured at Guantanamo.
CNN’s Daniel Dale offered one fact check on the “war criminals” complaint.
FactCheck.com offered three “checks” that energetically explained why Jackson was unfairly maligned, including her views on critical race theory.
Snopes.com wondered, “Was Ketanji Brown Jackson Drama Scene Partners with Matt Damon in College?” The verdict was “Research In Progress,” which shows you Snopes wants the clickbait before the research is even completed. That’s not a fact check at all.
It’s absolutely shocking that Bates didn’t bask in the glow of PolitiFact. Since March 22, these transparently partisan servants offered eight “fact checks” attacking conservatives and Republicans in defense of Jackson.
Add to that one bizarre attack on a Trump fan on Facebook with 2,700 friends. He was ruled “False” when he claimed the Kavanaugh hearings drew more live coverage than the Jackson hearings. That is “True,” and PolitiFact is “False.” Once they started throwing around shoddy rape claims, “The Price Is Right” and “The View” had to take a hike.
This is why Jacob Siegel of Tablet magazine proclaimed, “America’s new public-private ‘Ministry of Truth’ mainly serves the interests of the tech platforms and Democratic Party operatives who underwrite and support the fact-checking enterprise. This, in turn, convinces large numbers of normal Americans that the officially sanctioned news product they receive is an ass-covering con job.”
‘Simply put we deserve better than woke monopolists and their liberal lapdogs deciding what we can discuss.’
Some things never change. The corrupt media peddles false narratives, Big Tech censors conservatives for “disinformation,” and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley absolutely takes them to town for it.
That’s what happened during a floor speech on Thursday when the Iowa lawmaker tore into tech companies and the corporate media for colluding to censor conservative viewpoints, especially those that threaten Democrat narratives such as the Russia collusion hoax. Grassley was personally irked after Facebook flagged one of his posts linking to a Fox News article as “false information.”
It was an article about new allegations against the Hillary Clinton campaign and its associates that were brought to light in Special Counsel John Durham’s Feb. 11 federal court filing. It cited Durham’s filing directly, as well as a former chief congressional investigator who became acutely knowledgeable about the situation while working on the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee under California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes.
“Why does Facebook and one of its third-party fact-checker partners get to make the decision that this news article is considered false information?” Grassley asked. “That decision should be made by the American people who should be able to view that content and decide for themselves. It shouldn’t be decided by our Big Tech overlords who seem to only find fault with content that is conservative or goes against the liberal narrative.”
Though useful idiots will retort that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the like don’t single out conservatives for censorship, the evidence suggests otherwise. Just this week, Twitter allowed the private information of people who had donated to the Canadian Freedom Convoy to spread on its site after a leftist hacked GiveSendGo and doxxed them. Yet Twitter cited its hacked materials policy as the justification for censoring the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story right before the 2020 election, despite no evidence of hacking.
As Grassley mentioned, these are also the same tech and media companies that amplified the Steele dossier and broader fake Russia collusion narrative for years, and that are now “doing the bidding for the Clinton camp.”
“Why are they so afraid of reporting that exposes the Russia collusion hoax?” Grassley asked the question to which we already know the answer. It’s the massive hoax they staked their reputations and careers on and which has since unraveled piece by piece.
“This wouldn’t be an issue today if more journalists did their job of being the police of our society and reported on all investigations not just ones that appeal to a certain political party,” Grassley said. “What kind of message does this censorship send to a reporter who does take on the new allegations against the Clinton campaign and its associates and its labeled disinformation?”
It’s time to rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Grassley prescribed, referring to the provision that grants tech monopolies immunity regarding its users’ content. Big Tech has weaponized the provision, however, using it in its ideological purges of what it calls “misinformation” and “dangerous” content.
“It has become increasingly clear that these dominant platforms controlling discussion and dialogue are more beholden to cancel culture and not to the fundamental free speech principles that this country was founded upon,” Grassley said. “…Simply put we deserve better than woke monopolists and their liberal lapdogs deciding what we can discuss.”
Facebook admitted that its so-called “fact-checking” program is actually cranking out opinions used to censor certain viewpoints.
In its latest legal battle with TV journalist John Stossel over a post about the origins of the deadly 2020 California forest fires, Facebook, now rebranded and referred to as “Meta,” claims that its “fact-checking” program should not be the target of a defamation suit because its attempts to regulate content are done by third-party organizations who are entitled to their “opinion.”
Stossel’s original complaint questioned whether “Facebook and its vendors defame a user who posts factually accurate content, when they publicly announce that the content failed a ‘fact-check’ and is ‘partly false,’ and by attributing to the user a false claim that he never made?” Facebook, however, claimed that the counter article authored by Climate Feedback is not necessarily the tech giant’s responsibility.
Facebook went on to complain that Stossel’s problem isn’t with the Silicon Valley giants’ “labels” on his content but with the obscure organizations that Facebook employs to do its “fact-checking” dirty work.
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion,” Facebook admitted. “And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile.
It’s no secret that Facebook uses its “fact-checking” program to curb information that it wants to be censored, and this November lawsuit gives more insight into the Big Tech company’s methods and twisted rationale.
“The independence of the fact checkers is a deliberate feature of Meta’s fact-checking program, designed to ensure that Meta does not become the arbiter of truth on its platforms,” the lawsuit stated before admitting that “Meta identifies potential misinformation for fact-checkers to review and rate. … [I]t leaves the ultimate determination whether information is false or misleading to the fact-checkers. And though Meta has designed its platforms so that fact-checker ratings appear next to content that the fact-checkers have reviewed and rated, it does not contribute to the substance of those ratings.”
By Brian Flood • Fox News
Media outlets bent over backwards Tuesday night to fact check President Trump’s State of the Union address — but were accused of reaching with a string of rapid-response tweets and other analysis that came off as nitpicking.
Politico, for instance, was slammed on social media for declaring that Trump’s claim that “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north” to America was only partly true — because it’s actually 31 percent.
SOTU fact check: Trump said “one in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.” That’s partly true.
— POLITICO (@politico) February 6, 2019
Politico’s GIF of the fact check was quickly “ratioed,” getting way more negative comments than retweets or likes. Activist Obianuju Ekeocha responded with a woman using a magnifying glass captioned, “Politico fact checkers desperately looking to find the difference between 31% and 1 in 3.” Continue reading
Fake News: Newspaper fact checkers were once a rarity. Now they’re in a position to determine what people can read online, despite their own checkered past. So, who keeps the fact checkers honest?
In the past, fact checkers tended to focus mainly on debunking urban myths or clearly false claims made by political leaders. But lately, fact checkers have appointed themselves as arbiters of the credibility of news outlets. And now, giant tech companies like Google and Facebook have enlisted these “experts” to weed out “fake news.”
If a fact-checking outfit deems a story not entirely true, for example, Facebook can limit its reach on its News Feed. Google now includes a “fact check” box on its main search results page to help “people make more informed judgments.”
During the debate, Vice President made history by surpassing Al Gore for bad, boorish, and rude behavior. He laughed uncontrollably, signed, groaned, and laughed some more and engaged in generally childish antics throughout the debate. Biden’s rude and unprofessional behavior overshadowed the substance of what he said.
But as bizarre and unbalanced as his behavior was during the debate, the substance of what he actually said was perhaps the most troubling. Here are a short list of several of the most obviously false things that Biden said:
1. Afghanistan and Iraq: Biden accused Rep. Paul Ryan of putting two wars on the “credit card” and then bragged that he voted against both of them because he understood America could not afford them. “I was there, I voted against them,” Biden said. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.” But the truth is Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 the Iraq resolution on October 11, 2002. It takes some brass to tell whoppers like this one! Continue reading