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

[AmusedObserver]

@Guvnah

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”.

When presented with facts that do not fit their current worldview, a person has two choices:

• bury their head in the sand and pretend that the facts are wrong, or simply don’t exist
• adjust their worldview to fit the facts.

[WuWei]

@Oryx

@Guvnah

Practically none. At best, I take media “facts” with a lump of salt.

Your next question, of course, will be, “So then who do you trust?”

I wasn’t going to ask that because we shouldn’t blindly trust anyone all the time. We find some more trustworthy than others, that’s all.

You seen @Kelby ? I’m getting worried.

[WuWei]

@AmusedObserver

@Guvnah

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”.

When presented with facts that do not fit their current worldview, a person has two choices:

• bury their head in the sand and pretend that the facts are wrong, or simply don’t exist
• adjust their worldview to fit the facts.

When was the last time you changed your worldview?

[Bill.in.PA]

UPDATE:
Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for pioneering work with HIV, has this to say about the virus:

We came to the conclusion that there was a manipulation concerning this virus ”, pleads the virologist who accuses“ molecular biologists ”of having inserted into a coronavirus sequences of RNA of the HIV,“ probably ”in the goal of finding an AIDS vaccine.

The above quote is from google translate.
Here is the original quote in French with a link to the French article:
Nous sommes arrivés à la conclusion qu’il y avait une manipulation au sujet de ce virus”, plaide le virologue qui accuse des “biologistes moléculaires” d’avoir inséré dans un coronavirus des séquences d’ARN du VIH, “probablement” dans le but de trouver un vaccin contre le Sida.

Luc Montagnier, prix Nobel très controversé, reprend à son compte la théorie...

The mainstream media is ignoring Montagnier’s statement from what I have been able to find. Here is link to an article from ZeroHedge, who is permanently banned from Twitter:

Zerohedge

We will see if Facebook and Twitter ban Montaignier and links to his statements.

[Paul_Thomson]

@AmusedObserver

When presented with facts that do not fit their current worldview, a person has two choices:

• bury their head in the sand and pretend that the facts are wrong, or simply don’t exist
• adjust their worldview to fit the facts.

Yeah, it’s a waste of time comparing diverse arguments and arriving at your own reasoned conclusion which may or may not be a change of your opinion. Which is, I suppose why that option doesn’t appear on your list

[Scratch]

And we’ll have in depth analysis on this and more…Always liked that CEC line…lol

[Guvnah]

@AmusedObserver

When presented with facts that do not fit their current worldview, a person has two choices:

• bury their head in the sand and pretend that the facts are wrong, or simply don’t exist
• adjust their worldview to fit the facts.

Maybe libs limit themselves to those two choices.

Further, what libs call “facts” is often debatable. That’s the whole point of this thread, after all.

[WuWei]

@Scratch

And we’ll have in depth analysis on this and more…Always liked that CEC line…lol

“CEC” is the only place you hear that?

[WuWei]

@Scratch

And we’ll have in depth analysis on this and more…Always liked that CEC line…lol

Mika Brzezinski: “Our Job” to “Control Exactly What People Think”

And Yamiche should be familiar now, she’s the one who implied the Surgeon General is a racist.

[Bill.in.PA]

Good point. Liberal “fact checkers” end up claiming that their opinions are irrefutable facts therefore any arguments against them are dangerous conspiracy theories and/or lying about the “facts”.

That is what seems to be going on with the Facebook and Twitter fact checkers about the possible origin of the COVID-19 virus. The companies have selected people who have a vested interest in rejecting any possibility of a lab origin for the virus.

[Scratch]

One show I’m referring to, uses that line all the time. On a daily basis.

[WuWei]

@Scratch

One show I’m referring to, uses that line all the time. On a daily basis.

Ok, if you say so.

[WuWei]

@WuWei

@Oryx

@Guvnah

Practically none. At best, I take media “facts” with a lump of salt.

Your next question, of course, will be, “So then who do you trust?”

I wasn’t going to ask that because we shouldn’t blindly trust anyone all the time. We find some more trustworthy than others, that’s all.

You seen @Kelby ? I’m getting worried.

You guys think we should send somebody to look?

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

@Guvnah

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”.

Like “Analysis” to cover “opinion”

These are by far the worst titled articles. I go through different sources for information. I hate hate (!) when certain news sites use this as a title of the article. It’s an op Ed. Calling it analysis is a wuss move

[FreeAndClear]

@Guvnah

@WuWei

Like “Analysis” to cover “opinion”

Precisely.

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.

Yes yes libs eat it up. The same libs who cite tucker, rush and Laura.

[Bodecea]

@Guvnah

@AmusedObserver

When presented with facts that do not fit their current worldview, a person has two choices:

• bury their head in the sand and pretend that the facts are wrong, or simply don’t exist
• adjust their worldview to fit the facts.

Maybe libs limit themselves to those two choices.

Further, what libs call “facts” is often debatable. That’s the whole point of this thread, after all.

“limit themselves to those two choices”…what is a third or more choice besides those two?

[Guvnah]

@Bodecea

“limit themselves to those two choices”…what is a third or more choice besides those two?

Some have already been pointed out in this thread.

I see no need repeating them for you.

Please try to keep up.

[AmusedObserver]

@Guvnah

@AmusedObserver

When presented with facts that do not fit their current worldview, a person has two choices:

• bury their head in the sand and pretend that the facts are wrong, or simply don’t exist
• adjust their worldview to fit the facts.

Maybe libs limit themselves to those two choices.

Further, what libs call “facts” is often debatable. That’s the whole point of this thread, after all.

If you can debate it, it’s not a fact. Pretty elementary.

And it was already obvious where you fell in those choices.

[Guvnah]

@AmusedObserver

If you can debate it, it’s not a fact. Pretty elementary.

Precisely!

Thank you.