SIGforum
Best sites for checking facts
August 20, 2017, 12:10 PM
ZSMICHAELBest sites for checking facts
When reading articles online what are the best sites to fact check the stories? I generally view the source, and try to make a judgement but there must be a better way.
I am not talking about the obvious media bias of certain publications. Just for simple fact checking. Thanks
August 20, 2017, 02:00 PM
SMLgraybeardBeen using truthorfiction.com with reasonable results. Find some judgement is still called for though.
You've got to know what to do when you don't know what to do. August 20, 2017, 10:20 PM
TAllen01snopes.com and politifact.com
August 20, 2017, 10:28 PM
tatortoddquote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
snopes.com
The polite version is that Snopes is horribly biased when it comes to politics. They used to be good 10 or 12 years ago, but they haven't worth a room temp cup of urine for many years.
Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity
DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. August 21, 2017, 07:32 AM
WT2I found Politifact to be extremely biased for obama and quit reading it. They would twist or ignore whatever did not fit the narrative.
August 21, 2017, 07:46 AM
mutedbladeI think the majority of sites will be biased against the right in favor of the left. Simple fact is that the left has control over the narratives in both the media and technology, which covers almost all "fact" checking sites.
___________________________
No thanks, I've already got a penguin.
August 21, 2017, 10:25 AM
Dead_Eye
__________________________________________________________________
Beware the man who has one gun because he probably knows how to use it.
August 21, 2017, 03:02 PM
SRquote:
Originally posted by Dead_Eye:
www.sigforum.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Speak softly and carry a big stick loaded Sig August 21, 2017, 09:31 PM
TAllen01I think if any cite gives you truthful citations to sources, then that is all you need. If it debunks a myth by citing to a verifiable source that contradicts the myth, then it is a site to consider.
For example, if someone asks whether our President believes that global warming is a Chinese hoax, and snopes.com says yes, he does, and here's the Tweet confirming that, that is not pro-Obama or anyone else. It is purely factual. As long as as websites rely on facts for their debunking or verification of truths or falsity, I am OK with that, because it would be, by definition, the truth. I would not cite any website for everything, but if there is verifiable authority supporting a refutation or confirmation, I don't see it as taking one political side or the other.
August 21, 2017, 09:35 PM
ZSMICHAELIs this site ok? If I recall correctly Walter Annenberg was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Any thoughts?
http://www.factcheck.org/spindetectors/about/August 21, 2017, 09:35 PM
TAllen01Here's a good example re Trump's father. Was he arrested at a KKK rally? Snopes says yes, and gives you a citation to the newspaper article. Does it say that means he was a Klansman? No. In fact, it specifically says: "While it’s possible the elder Trump attended the event along with KKK supporters and Klansmen, it’s also possible he was minding his own business in his own neighborhood and got swept up by police after unknowingly finding himself in the middle of an enormous brawl." That's quite neutral, and telling you that you cannot draw a specific conclusion about the arrest there.
August 21, 2017, 09:39 PM
SapperSteelquote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
snopes.com and politifact.com
You forgot your
icon.
Oh! You were serious?
Good grief.
Thanks,
Sap
August 21, 2017, 09:40 PM
TAllen01quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Is this site ok? If I recall correctly Walter Annenberg was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Any thoughts?
http://www.factcheck.org/spindetectors/about/
My thought: it depends. What info are you trying to confirm, and what authority or facts are given to either refute or confirm? Some sites may not offer a lot of support for their conclusions regarding a specific topic; that would give me pause. So use all of them. If there is a consistent pattern, I think you can be confident in the result. Remember, we are trying to check facts, and not really anything else. Facts are either true or not; and can be confirmed, or not.
August 21, 2017, 09:42 PM
TAllen01quote:
Originally posted by SapperSteel:
quote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
snopes.com and politifact.com
You forgot your
icon.
Oh! You were serious?
Good grief.
Well, nicely done. You have thoroughly convinced me with your facts and logic that neither site has ever been correct. Oh wait, you gave neither fact nor logic.
August 21, 2017, 09:42 PM
TigerDorequote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
snopes.com and politifact.com
hahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahhahhahaha
.
August 21, 2017, 09:48 PM
tatortoddquote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
I think if any cite gives you truthful citations to sources, then that is all you need. If it debunks a myth by citing to a verifiable source that contradicts the myth, then it is a site to consider.
For example, if someone asks whether our President believes that global warming is a Chinese hoax, and snopes.com says yes, he does, and here's the Tweet confirming that, that is not pro-Obama or anyone else. It is purely factual. As long as as websites rely on facts for their debunking or verification of truths or falsity, I am OK with that, because it would be, by definition, the truth. I would not cite any website for everything, but if there is verifiable authority supporting a refutation or confirmation, I don't see it as taking one political side or the other.
But that isn't how snopes treats liberals. A liberal can say something horrific (i.e. what they actually believe), and will mark as false based on the next day's spun explanation.
Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity
DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer. August 21, 2017, 09:51 PM
SapperSteelquote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
quote:
Originally posted by SapperSteel:
quote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
snopes.com and politifact.com
You forgot your
icon.
Oh! You were serious?
Good grief.
Well, nicely done. You have thoroughly convinced me with your facts and logic that neither site has ever been correct. Oh wait, you gave neither fact nor logic.
My post shows my initial response to your earliest post in this thread, which was "He was being sarcastic, right?". Then I read your follow on posts and realized you were really shilling for Snopes, you were seriously asserting that they were unbiased. Which lead to my "Good grief."
Look, you are one of two things: 1) a shill for snopes doing your best to pull the wool over everybody else's eyes, or 2) too stupid to see the bias.
Hey, that's not rain, they're pissing on your boots.
Thanks,
Sap
August 21, 2017, 09:53 PM
TigerDorequote:
Originally posted by tatortodd:
quote:
Originally posted by TAllen01:
I think if any cite gives you truthful citations to sources, then that is all you need. If it debunks a myth by citing to a verifiable source that contradicts the myth, then it is a site to consider.
For example, if someone asks whether our President believes that global warming is a Chinese hoax, and snopes.com says yes, he does, and here's the Tweet confirming that, that is not pro-Obama or anyone else. It is purely factual. As long as as websites rely on facts for their debunking or verification of truths or falsity, I am OK with that, because it would be, by definition, the truth. I would not cite any website for everything, but if there is verifiable authority supporting a refutation or confirmation, I don't see it as taking one political side or the other.
But that isn't how snopes treats liberals. A liberal can say something horrific (i.e. what they actually believe), and will mark as false based on the next day's spun explanation.
August 21, 2017, 10:01 PM
Scoutmasterquote:
Originally posted by SapperSteel:....My post shows my initial response to your earliest post in this thread, which was "He was being sarcastic, right?". Then I read your follow on posts and realized you were really shilling for Snopes, you were seriously asserting that they were unbiased. Which lead to my "Good grief."
Look, you are one of two things: 1) a shill for snopes doing your best to pull the wool over everybody else's eyes, or 2) too stupid to see the bias.
Hey, that's not rain, they're pissing on your boots.
You didn't mention the latest shenanigans going on at SNOPES, financial, and things of a more "personal" nature. Seems to me SNOPES has never been impartial and unbiased when it comes to political matters, they always lean left, the only unknown is how far left do they bend on any particular issue.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it....While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it"
- Judge Learned Hand, May 1944 August 21, 2017, 10:10 PM
TAllen01I could not care less about snopes. I only care whether facts or alleged facts are true or not. If they are, they are, and then cite your source.
snopes verified, with citation to verifiable sorces, the two examples I gave. Not one of you has been able to refute those two examples, or explain how those two instances make them liberal.
We have even talked about ther other sites yet. I guess I'll have to dig a few more up to show you that facts matter, and opinions don't. You all could argue, or have the opinion, that the moon is made of green cheese. That does not make it factual.