Well, I have to say that 'Think Progress' were a bit silly with their headline stating that "Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade". Reading the article, it's clear that Kavanaugh did not...
Well, I have to say that 'Think Progress' were a bit silly with their headline stating that "Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade". Reading the article, it's clear that Kavanaugh did not say this - 'Think Progress' have inferred this from various statements, written and oral, that Kavanaugh has made over time. That inference seems to be quite reliable and probably correct. But an inference about what someone might do is not the same as a statement by that person about what they will do. 'Think Progress' were therefore overreaching in their headline.
I'm not sure I'd class this article as outright "false": the body of the article seems quite well-supported by evidence, and well-reasoned in its inferences. But whoever wrote that headline should be severely chastised.
The good (and bad) news is that this could be rectified simply by replacing "said" with "implied". It's good because it's a simple fix. It's bad because it's such a simple fix but they missed it.
The fact that a rag as partisan and factually wrong as The Weekly Standard could be counted as a Fact Checker by FB is a sign of the naïveté or left/right false balance at FB. Facts don’t have a...
The fact that a rag as partisan and factually wrong as The Weekly Standard could be counted as a Fact Checker by FB is a sign of the naïveté or left/right false balance at FB. Facts don’t have a political bias you ridiculous mofo’s.
Yup, only one is run by Rupert Murdoch. We lost the war against stupidity when we let News Corp defile our rational discourse. We should have been protesting outside of his offices for the last...
Yup, only one is run by Rupert Murdoch. We lost the war against stupidity when we let News Corp defile our rational discourse. We should have been protesting outside of his offices for the last two decades. Kill the weed at its roots.
Until that issue is resolved, I feel like all other goals are red herrings.
The Weekly Standard is a conservative magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch. The other organizations are all fact checking or fact reporting organizations. The Weekly Standard is the only magazine...
The Weekly Standard is a conservative magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch. The other organizations are all fact checking or fact reporting organizations. The Weekly Standard is the only magazine among the group and the only heavily partisan one.
And according to ars, the piece in question made an assertion based on facts just not explicitly stated. I wonder if that just means sites will start throwing out qualifiers when suggesting...
And according to ars, the piece in question made an assertion based on facts just not explicitly stated. I wonder if that just means sites will start throwing out qualifiers when suggesting theories or interpreting facts (which can be biased)
If they just change "said" to "strongly indicated" in their article, would the Weekly Standard have to reverse their ruling? That would highlight what a pitiful partisan excuse for fact checking...
If they just change "said" to "strongly indicated" in their article, would the Weekly Standard have to reverse their ruling? That would highlight what a pitiful partisan excuse for fact checking they're doing.
Well, I have to say that 'Think Progress' were a bit silly with their headline stating that "Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade". Reading the article, it's clear that Kavanaugh did not say this - 'Think Progress' have inferred this from various statements, written and oral, that Kavanaugh has made over time. That inference seems to be quite reliable and probably correct. But an inference about what someone might do is not the same as a statement by that person about what they will do. 'Think Progress' were therefore overreaching in their headline.
I'm not sure I'd class this article as outright "false": the body of the article seems quite well-supported by evidence, and well-reasoned in its inferences. But whoever wrote that headline should be severely chastised.
The good (and bad) news is that this could be rectified simply by replacing "said" with "implied". It's good because it's a simple fix. It's bad because it's such a simple fix but they missed it.
The fact that a rag as partisan and factually wrong as The Weekly Standard could be counted as a Fact Checker by FB is a sign of the naïveté or left/right false balance at FB. Facts don’t have a political bias you ridiculous mofo’s.
Example: https://www.google.com/search?q=weekly+standard+iraq+war
I had never heard of weekly standard before this article. I wonder how they managed to get on facebooks short list
Yup, only one is run by Rupert Murdoch. We lost the war against stupidity when we let News Corp defile our rational discourse. We should have been protesting outside of his offices for the last two decades. Kill the weed at its roots.
Until that issue is resolved, I feel like all other goals are red herrings.
Which one ?
The Weekly Standard is a conservative magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch. The other organizations are all fact checking or fact reporting organizations. The Weekly Standard is the only magazine among the group and the only heavily partisan one.
And according to ars, the piece in question made an assertion based on facts just not explicitly stated. I wonder if that just means sites will start throwing out qualifiers when suggesting theories or interpreting facts (which can be biased)
If they just change "said" to "strongly indicated" in their article, would the Weekly Standard have to reverse their ruling? That would highlight what a pitiful partisan excuse for fact checking they're doing.