While admittedly hesitant to feel capable of demanding what all others should care about, perhaps the better question is: \u201cDo we care if our news is accurate?\u201d Unquestionably, not all proclaimed news sources present actual, factual news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To be clear, biased sources are capable of being actual and factual; the credibility question, however, is simply whether they are transparent in regard to how their bias impacts the way in which they report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Take \u201cfact checkers,\u201d for example. We\u2019d like to assume they are providing us with accurate news. They publicize and pronounce themselves as sources which scrutinize reality. Take Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact,<\/em> for example. Each claims to be actual and factual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet a key, oft-overlooked part of fact-checking is ensuring that the assessments are balanced and complete. Notice how AllSides, <\/em>a respected Intramuralist source, shares 6 ways in which the Fact Checkers quietly mislead by embedding their bias:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just fact check the other guys, leave \u201ctheir side\u201d mostly unchallenged.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is apparent in the case of President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump \u2014 when Biden falsely said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Trump supporters at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot \u201ckilled a police officer,\u201d few fact-checkers paid any attention to it. Many of the same outlets that didn\u2019t cover Biden\u2019s claim published inaccurate stories in the riot\u2019s immediate aftermath about the officer\u2019s death. Conversely, few right-rated sources spend any time fact-checking Trump’s claims that election fraud cost him the 2020 election\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Fact check extreme or narrow statements to label them as false, implying that a more general idea is also false.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n PolitiFact (Lean Left bias) recently analyzed the statement that \u201ccritical race theory has moved into all our schools in Virginia\u201d and found it to be false. The claim is in essence true, though highly exaggerated. If PolitiFact instead had fact checked whether \u201cthemes of CRT are being taught in schools today,\u201d that answer, based on their own description, would be true. Fact checkers on both sides issue true\/false binaries on claims that are largely subjective. In an article about a Florida bill that would prohibit discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools, Breitbart Fact Check rated the claim that \u201cConservative Florida legislators are targeting vulnerable gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex children\u201d as \u201cFALSE\u201d, even though the claim itself is highly subjective. Breitbart\u2019s presentation of the claim minimizes more specific criticisms of the bill about freedom of expression and general concerns about the LGBTQ+ community.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Subjectively judge claims, often beyond the hard facts, to give a final \u201cfact check\u201d rating. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n One example of this is in this controversial fact check by The Washington Post of Carly Fiorina\u2019s statement, \u201cI started as a secretary, typing and filing for a nine-person real estate firm. It\u2019s only in this country that you can go from being a secretary to chief executive of the largest tech company in the world, and run for president of the United States. It\u2019s only possible here.\u201d The Washington Post Fact Check (Lean Left) gave her statement a \u201c3 Pinocchio\u201d rating (which means \u201cmostly false\u201d or has \u201csignificant factual error and\/or obvious contradictions\u201d), saying that “In telling her only-in-America story, she conveniently glosses over the only-for-Fiorina opportunities and options beyond what the proverbial mailroom worker has,” while also affirming with detail that she had indeed started as a secretary.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Trust only a few government experts or others that are likely biased toward one conclusion.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Fact checkers often show bias via which authority they appeal to. They may trust claims and data given by institutions or authorities such as government agencies or military branches that are themselves being charged with falsehood or controversial behavior. For instance, years ago, PolitiFact fact checked the GOP accusation that many would not be able to hold onto their current doctor with Obamacare. PolitiFact appealed to statements from Obama\u2019s administration to state as fact that you could keep your doctor, and called accusations to the contrary as false, not covering the arguments and data showing that you would lose your doctor. (To their credit, after Obamacare was passed and many people were forced to give up their current doctors, exposing the lie, PolitiFact called Obama\u2019s claim that you could keep your doctor their \u201cLie of the Year\u201d.)\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Only provide or emphasize data that supports one conclusion.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On issues such as gun control, racism in policing, and abortion, there is a range of data and research that support and oppose the various arguments about the issue. A fact checker might emphasize one set of data and facts while completely ignoring or greatly downplaying another set of data and facts that support an alternative conclusion\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lack of thought diversity within the fact checker team.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Journalists tend to lean left. This may explain why Politifact doubled down on a fact check debunking the theory that Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of a rifle on the night he killed two men and wounded one during Black Lives Matter unrest was “perfectly legal.” A judge tossed out a charge of a minor carrying a weapon, reportedly due to unclear laws regarding the alleged violation, but Politifact wrote a lengthy explanation about why they believe their fact check conclusion still had merit.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Just want to be actual and factual, friends. That would help so many of our conversations, enabling us to more productively dialogue about what is indeed true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While admittedly hesitant to feel capable of demanding what all others should care about, perhaps the better question is: \u201cDo we care if our news is accurate?\u201d Unquestionably, not all proclaimed news sources present actual, factual news. To be clear, biased sources are capable of being actual and factual; the credibility question, however, is simply … <\/p>\n