Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.
This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website.
MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. I’ve spoken with @Rooki about this issue, and his response has been that he will continue to use his tool despite its flaws until something better materializes because the API is free and easy to use. This is like searching for a lost wallet far from where you lost it because the light from the nearby street lamp is better. He is motivated to disregard the harm he is doing to !politics, because he doesn’t want to pay for the work of actual fact-checkers, and has little regard for the many voices who have spoken out against it in his community.
By giving MBFC another platform to increase its exposure, you are repeating his mistake. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.
And a billionaire singer who’s already such a common target for AI deepfakes that she’s quite likely the one person on the planet most ready, willing and able to sue someone’s ass off over them.
To clarify what MBFC considers “MIXED” factual reporting (the same rating they give known disinformation factory Breitbart):
Further, while The Guardian has failed several fact checks, they also produce an incredible amount of content; therefore, most stories are accurate, but the reader must beware, and hence why we assign them a Mixed rating for factual reporting.
They list like five fact checks, while The Guardian puts out basically quintuple that every day. And moreover, this is the sort of asinine nitpick that they classify as a “fact check”.
“Private renting is making people ill.” “Private renting is making people ill, but maybe this happens with other housing situations too, we don’t know, so we rate this as false.”
MBFC’s ratings for “factual reporting” are a joke.
Does Donald Trump, the convicted felon rapist racist, really want Taylor Swift to publicize again to him about how much she champions for human rights, advocates for the LGTBQ+ community, adovcates for abortion rights, and hates the corrupt fascism and conservatism poisoning the U.S.?
Right before an election, too! Sure, Diaper Don, let’s get the Swifties angry again and let’s have them vote Democratic in droves. That’s a community you should really piss off!
Desperate Diaper Don, beloved friend of Jeffrey Epstein, is desperate once again.
Remember, he picked a running mate who called him America’s Hitler before he started brown nosing. I can absolutely see this moron thinking that Swift suddenly went MAGA.
Trump lives in his own reality, where he is a billionaire genius, and Taylor Swift and her fanbase loves him.
In our reality, he’s a traitor insurrectionist, rapist, racist, liar, fraud, corrupt, sexist, convicted felon, asshole, degenerate, Fascist, and heavily-indebted moron. And Taylor Swift hates him.
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New York Times:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.