quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:...Hey, that's not rain, they're pissing on your boots.

I didn't mention confirmation bias in my above post. Confirmation bias is when people accept as truth only those things that confirm what they already believe.

Confirmation bias does exist, as does it subset halo effect. So be on the lookout for that.

Check the various sites, and see who most other, non-MSM outlets consider reliable fact-chceking sites:

https://www.dailydot.com/layer...t-checking-websites/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...fact-checking-sites/

https://icitizen.com/blog/top-...fact-checking-sites/

https://beebom.com/best-fact-checking-websites/

http://www.tbsbraintree.com/se...king%20Resources.pdf

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

The bottom line is, regardless of bias, check the source of the info cited in the article either confirming or refuting. If it is merely someone else's opinion, be skeptical. Very skeptical.

quote:

snopes.com

sounds like a great operation..

David and Barbara Mikkelson:

Now they are divorced - with Barbara claiming in legal documents he embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on 'himself and prostitutes'

In a lengthy and bitter legal dispute he is claiming to be underpaid and demanding 'industry standard' or at least $360,000 a year
Snopes.com founder David Mikkelson's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator

She has worked as an escort and porn actress and despite claims website is non-political ran as a Libertarian for Congress on a 'Dump Bush' platform

Its main 'fact checker' is Kimberly LaCapria, whose blog 'ViceVixen' says she is in touch with her 'domme side' and has posted on Snopes.com while smoking pot.

Doesn't sound all that unbiased to me. At one time they might have been an accurate source. The are imploding and I wouldn't trust them further than the end of my arm.

Is this site ok? If I recall correctly Walter Annenberg was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Any thoughts?

http://www.factcheck.org/spindetectors/about/

Does anyone have feedback regarding the above site?? Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:
I 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.

What happens when snopes doesn't even mention anything? Go to the fact checking section and type "Lois Lerner". Notice anything? A distinct lack of anything regarding the IRS and their outright targeting of the Tea Party. Who needs the truth, when you can just bury it? Nope, no bias on snopes, none at all. Anything regarding Charlottesville that can point to Antifa/BLM/Soros has already been "debunked" without so much as an actual investigation, but if it points to the White Nationalists/Nazi's it is FACTUAL. Funny how that shit plays out.

Why would you anyone with more than 2 brain cells use a website that either obfuscates the "truth" or plainly hides it? I can go through that website and counter argue most, if not all of their claims if I had half of their resources. Are there some that are absolute? Sure, that's how they get you. Give a few examples with a factual basis and hope that people are to dimwitted to question the rest!

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.

Interesting example. So a tweet from Trump is proof of his belief in something? It would seem to me that if someone wanted to determine what a person believed in, it would require looking a little deeper than a single comment at a single moment in time. For example Obama repeatedly stated you could keep your doctor. Do you think he believed that?
In my opinion this is a perfect example of exactly how Snopes bias works. It bases a narrative on slim or pseudo fact, while often ignoring more detailed facts or larger collections of past work, writings and conversations.

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:....a tweet from Trump is proof of his belief in something? It would seem to me that if someone wanted to determine what a person believed in, it would require looking a little deeper than a single comment at a single moment in time. For example Obama repeatedly stated you could keep your doctor. Do you think he believed that?
In my opinion this is a perfect example of exactly how Snopes bias works. It bases a narrative on slim or pseudo fact, while often ignoring more detailed facts or larger collections of past work, writings and conversations.

As I said, confirmation bias. Deny/ignore any supposed "facts" that don't fit what you have already decided to present as "truth".

quote:

Originally posted by TSE:

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.

Interesting example. So a tweet from Trump is proof of his belief in something? It would seem to me that if someone wanted to determine what a person believed in, it would require looking a little deeper than a single comment at a single moment in time. For example Obama repeatedly stated you could keep your doctor. Do you think he believed that?
In my opinion this is a perfect example of exactly how Snopes bias works. It bases a narrative on slim or pseudo fact, while often ignoring more detailed facts or larger collections of past work, writings and conversations.

Then that is my fault, and I apologize. Poor wording on my part.

I have no idea if Trump believes that or not, and I am sure snopes does not know it either. It was simply his words. The more accurate way to state it is if you wanted to know whether Trump tweeted that or not, snopes says the answer is yes (and probably shows you the tweet).

Re Obama--good example. If I want to know whether he said that, snopes or any of the other sites listed would likely confirm that (they better), but no one can know whether he actually believed it. And then you can also check the fact of whether you can keep you doctor via these cites, and conclude that he said it, but it did not happen.

But if you don't like snopes's owners, don't go there, there are several others listed by me and others. Just make sure wherever you go there is citation to the source it is basing its conclusion on. Go to several cites to confirm.

All I am concerned about, and I have said it several times, is if you want know whether something is a fact or just a myth, go somewhere that provides independent, outside authority for its conclusion (like a copy of a newspaper article, an actual tweet, a snippet of audio, the actual video of somone saying the thing you are checking out, etc).

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:... if you want know whether something is a fact or just a myth, go somewhere that provides independent, outside authority for its conclusion (like a copy of a newspaper article, an actual tweet, a snippet of audio, the actual video of somone saying the thing you are checking out, etc).

Problem is, you can say anything you want on any topic, and find some ostensibly credible source to back up your position. Things can be twisted, manipulated, distorted, edited, taken out of context, all to support a falsehood.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:... if you want know whether something is a fact or just a myth, go somewhere that provides independent, outside authority for its conclusion (like a copy of a newspaper article, an actual tweet, a snippet of audio, the actual video of somone saying the thing you are checking out, etc).

Problem is, you can say anything you want on any topic, and find some ostensibly credible source to back up your position. Things can be twisted, manipulated, distorted, edited, taken out of context, all to support a falsehood.

Well, OP, there's your answer. Nothing can ever be verified, so don't believe anything ever said.

Anyone can say anything they want, and nothing can ever be verified as a fact. 2+2 does not equal 4; that is just someone twisting and manipulating data to support their falsehood that math works.

But seriously, if someone just wants to know whether something occurred or not, it must be verified by someone else, not just someone else's narrative, spin, or belief. Often, you can find the original source directly in those sites that are designed to exactly that: verify the truth or falsity of a myth, legend, or fact.

Fortunately, we have a President who communicates directly to us (the people) through Twitter, so he can avoid the twist, spin, or bias of MSM. So if it is something involving a statement he made, you can often find his direct quotes, in context, with no spin, twisting, or bias filtering anything.