Who fact-checks the factcheckers?

J. Warwick Martinez - Staff Writer
In lieu of an in-depth article which provides a contextual analysis of the last set of claimed 'fact-checks' for the third debate, an unpleasant discovery was made. With sites like Politifact, Factcheck.org, Washington Post, as well as Brietbart and the like, one would expect a set of fair and balanced analysis of the third debate to be somewhere if not between the lines- Unfortuantely this isn't the case. Even the most cursory analysis of the "big three" first mentioned provides an obvious taint to the
reporting, what's perhaps worse is the brutal recontextualization that occurs in the pieces which are claimed to be 'fact checking.' Again-- even the most untrained eye can see that a gross change of the contexts for questions as well as replies for the debate questions alters the perception beyond recognition.
What's this mean? The simple answer is that consumers of mainstream media have a resource to have their suspicions (or fears) confirmed. In short, to quote Simon and Garfunkel- the standard media consumer "... hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." While it's an important, if not critical, role for sites like Brietbart to attempt to provide a (mostly) fair and balanced fact-check; To what end? What good is provided to give pearls before swine? If an average media consumer wants only to have their own confirmation bais sated, what is the role for any type of news which seeks to provide an actual unbiased set of reporting? Time will tell if this trend continues, or if the lacuna of 'real news' can be filled by organizations such as ours.
Read 774 times Last modified on Saturday, 29 October 2016 21:03
Rate this item
(0 votes)

About Author

88 Responses Found

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

MED LOGO

News Letter

Subscribe our Email News Letter to get Instant Update at anytime