We have encountered cases in the past where certain fact-checkers were blatantly wrong. In some cases they addressed something other than the relevant point;, in other cases their logic failed to support their argument; and in others, clear partisan bias was exposed. I rarely use ‘fact-checkers’ and only when their information is clearly non-partisan, say if I were writing about butterfly species in Panama.I have referred in past writing to the problem with fact-checkers which are being used as a psyop (Mainstream Media (MSM)) without supporting my claims. I now identify specific ones, their claims and the refutation of their claims. It doesn’t mean that all their claims are false but should raise a warning flag when they are used to support a point.
AP News
This organization is used to counter information that does not align with official narratives. As an example, consider “COVID-19 vaccines offer benefits even to those previously infected“. Here is an analysis of the authenticity of this fact check: “For Whom Do the Covid “Fact Checkers” Really Work?“.
Opinion rather than fact[7][8].
FactCheck.org
Martin Armstrong discusses the corporate connections that are behind this biased “news” source here.
PolitiFact (The Poynter Institute)
The Heartland Institute made a statement about burn acreage of wildfires (WBA) in the US based on government records: “Wildfires are far less frequent and severe than was the case throughout the first half of the 20th century.”[1] Jon Greenberg of PolitiFact[2] refuted their statement based on sources that have selected or reconstructed data to fit the AGW narrative. Tony Heller[3] deconstructs his argument. Watch also Heller’s video next:
This data manipulation is similar to that being performed with temperature data by NASA and others trying to support the global warming hysteria meme.
Reuters
Reuters is another mainstrem news source whose fact-checkers exhibit corporate biases. An example is provided bt Zero Hedge[6].
Wikipedia
I gave an example in The Vaccines May Be More Dangerous Than I Had Intimated of how Wikipedia modified an entry to denigrate Dr. Robert Malone after he spoke against the vaccines. Since I rarely use Wikipedia I don’t run into examples myself.
Here’s an article about US Intelligence controlling Wikipedia: US Intelligence Has Been Manipulating Wikipedia For Over A Decade: Wiki Co-Founder.
Good Information Inc.
Although not a fact-checker, this new company will be an incubator of such sites and organization. It’s funding is from George Soros, Reid Hoffman and others with a progressive and globalist agenda. The goal of the company will be to fund new media companies that tackle “disinformation”.
References
- Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires. Heartland Institute. As of October 24, 2021.
- Greenberg J. No, wildfires weren’t bigger in the 1920s and ‘30s than today. PolitiFact. October 15, 2021.
- Heller T. Politifact Weighs In On Forest Fires. Real Climate Science. October 24, 2021.
- Burnett HS. The Hill Is Wrong, Climate Change Is Grossly Overemphasized as a Factor Causing Wildfires. Climate realism. October 11, 2021.
- Fischer S. Exclusive: Billionaires back new media firm to combat disinformation. AXIOS. October 26, 2021.
- Staff. Reuters Ratio’d Into Oblivion After Fact Check Fail Defending Bill Gates. Zero Hedge. November 17, 2021.
- Stieber Z. Meta Attorneys: Facebook Fact Check Labels Are Opinion. Epoch Times. December 10, 2021.
- World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal Roasts Facebook Over “Inaccurate, Incompetent & Irresponsible” Fact Check. Zero Hedge. December 21, 2021.
***
Did you read my last post: BnP 20211024: Moderna Is in Trouble? I may be having technical issues again.
***
If you liked this post, consider subscribing – in right-hand sidebar – if you are not a subscriber already. Please forward it to anyone else you might think will benefit from it. We are at a critical point in time where we need to disseminate truth to those who have ears to hear, and be forming communities of like-minded individuals.
0 Comments