Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fact-Checkers Are Used to Confuse the Public: Sharyl Attkisson
The Epoch Times ^ | January 23, 2022 | Masooma Haq and Jan Jekielek

Posted on 01/23/2022 9:22:39 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: Steely Tom

So truth is subjectively determined?
What about the deranged person? Is he/she an accurate determiner of truth?
It seems you went a little bit TOO simplistic in your metric.
Or maybe you left off the sarc mark?


21 posted on 01/23/2022 10:44:08 AM PST by Honest Nigerian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
My ex-best friend chose a left-wing fact check opinion about the Georgia election theft over our friendship.

Perhaps he will eventually think better of it and come back to you.

The Left seems to be very good at exploiting the confusion that develops around any large-scale paradigm shift.

The "fact checkers" for example, which have emerged in the wake of the mass publishing phenomenon represented by the explosive growth of the internet in the last twenty-five years or so.

Technology has greatly lowered the cost of mass visibility to individuals; that cost is now virtually zero, since it "piggybacks" on top of other mass-communication benefits and necessities such as entertainment and coordinated work. Once you've paid for those, the mass-visibility, mass-publishing piece is almost free of charge.

Because of that, there's a "tower of Babel" effect. Too many voices, little filtering.

It used to be that the "filtering" was accomplished by big publishing houses, newspaper editorial committees, big record companies. These had to be responsive to the market in order to survive financially. They had to balance the need to service and satisfy people of many points of view with the need to not be seen as irresponsible or silly. If too many people found what they published to be nonsense (otherwise known as BS), they would lose credibility and no one would give them the time of day. Once lost, credibility is almost impossible for an organization to regain, so these gatekeepers had a strong economic incentive to publish things that made sense and could be verified independently, i.e. to be honest.

Because of the internet, the economic advantage of honesty has almost vanished for these organizations, and they've decided to seek profit elsewhere; specifically, to rent out their "audience reach" to organizations that will pay to influence the thinking of large numbers of people. Sometimes these "organizations" are the organs of the State. Sometimes they are pseudo-state organizations, for want of another word (I'm thinking here of "the Deep State," or what Catherine Austin Fitts callse "Mr. Global").

The "fact checker" phenomenon is just another iteration in The Left's endless quest to seize the high ground, the choke points, in the formation of human networks of discourse and commerce, along with "the Cancel Culture."

The Left is very good at exploiting these "transient phenomena" (to use an engineering term), to seize the high ground any time society undergoes rapid change.

That's why they like to create "transients," so to speak; with every transient there comes a flare of "transient phenomena," like sparks from a bonfire when you throw a big rock in the middle of it. They don't know what those sparks will consist of, but they're confident that they'll be able to take advantage of whatever sparks fly out.

Hence the theory of "never let a crisis go to waste."

The Left likes crises, just as it likes "useful idiots."

The Right does not like crises, and has no need of "useful idiots."

22 posted on 01/23/2022 11:03:34 AM PST by Steely Tom ([Voter Fraud] == [Civil War])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Good Points!


23 posted on 01/23/2022 11:12:48 AM PST by Big Red Badger (Make His Paths Straight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Regarding the 2020 election, fact-checkers and even news reporters repeatedly say that the claims of fraud were offered "without evidence" AND that they have been "debunked." The two claims are contradictory: you can't "debunk" a claim that is made without evidence, you can only "debunk" the specific evidence used to support a claim.

In fact, a wide range of evidence was offered in support of the claims of 2020 election fraud. Rather than argue against the evidence, journalists just quoted each other saying it had been "debunked."

And going back to 2016, the left claimed that Trump "stole" the election or was somehow "illegitimate" without even bothering to offer any evidence. And the fact-checkers never challenged them.
24 posted on 01/23/2022 11:15:37 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: miserare

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.…

Ok good,i really need a bridge to nowhere, so how many lanes? /s


25 posted on 01/23/2022 7:34:59 PM PST by drSteve78 (Je suis Deplorable. STILL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Excellent analysis.


26 posted on 01/24/2022 5:44:30 PM PST by miserare ( Respect for life--life of all kinds-- is the first principle of civilization.~~A. Schweitzer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson