What happens when fact-checkers have an obvious conflict of interest?

“I have worked in this exact laboratory at various times for the past two years,” she said. “I can personally attest to the strict control and containment measures implemented while working there. The staff at WIV are incredibly competent, hardworking, and are excellent scientists with superb track records.”–Dr. Danielle Anderson, facebook fact checker

In addition to the recently published reports from the State Department, there have been worries about he the Wuhan lab going back many years:

. . .worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. . .Ebright is not convinced of the need for more than one BSL-4 lab in mainland China. He suspects that the expansion there is a reaction to the networks in the United States and Europe, which he says are also unwarranted. He adds that governments will assume that such excess capacity is for the potential development of bioweapons.
“These facilities are inherently dual use,” he says. The prospect of ramping up opportunities to inject monkeys with pathogens also worries, rather than excites, him: “They can run, they can scratch, they can bite. . .

Note the disclaimer at the top of the Nature article. Nothing to see here, move on . . .

Dr. Anderson has not only worked at the lab at the center of controversy, she leads work at a similar lab studying bat viruses in Singapore.

Are scientists who lead work in a biolabs qualified to give unbiased reviews about the risks of leaks from the biolabs they work with?

Twitter and Facebook continue to censor postings about these risks. Are they basing their censoring on obviously biased sources?

I have chosen to eschew all “fact check” articles and sites and claims from the media.

They are mislabeled and should be called “fact spin to achieve a narrative”.


Conspiracies. Conspiracies everywhere.

1 Like

The article the OP called a fact check article wasn’t a fact check article.

People who don’t read actual “fact check” articles do so because they don’t want their confirmation bias disturbed.



Like “Analysis” to cover “opinion”

1 Like

“Fact check articles” are written by people with biases. They are really no different than the really good posters here using links and quotes.


Everyone has biases. Good fact checkers at least attempt to set them aside and focus on the evidence.


And libs eat it up. The same sort of libs who suddenly want Biden gaffes to be evaluated “in context” choose agendized media “analysis” as valid context.


But they’re not the ones doing “fact checking” for the media.


Interesting :thinking:
How do you know that something that Trump said is true or not?

I just wait for libs to say it’s a lie. That’s how. :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes:

1 Like

:rofl: :crazy_face:

Interesting :thinking:
If libs say it is a lie, you assume that what Trump said is actually true?

You need to get your sarcasm meter recalibrated.

1 Like

Glad we could agree. So do posters here. You and @Safiel come to mind.

How do you know a fact checker is “good”?

I go on reputation and use of citations to support their findings.

Some are, some aren’t. You literally don’t trust anyone in the media?

Many righties reject fact checking sources out of hand, moderates and lefties don’t in my experience.

Interesting phenomenon, no?

The best fact checkers collect and verify evidence and let consumers come to their own conclusions. But no fact checker is perfect and even the most trusted should always have their findings scrutinized.


Citations can be tricky.