"Fact checking" is just writing glorified editorials. It is considered "opinion" in a court of law.
Calling something a "fact check" when it is an opinion-editorial is a form of disinformation.
Calling something a "fact check" when it is an opinion-editorial is a form of disinformation.
Also: I wonder if you have to be ex-CIA or ex-FBI to qualify for this CNN "media and disinformation" job? π€
The track record of the "fact checking" industry as a whole is so ludicrous that any self-respecting person should be ashamed to call themselves a "fact checker."
The entire premise is a lazy "appeal to authority" fallacy. It is elitist and dismissive of productive argument.
The entire premise is a lazy "appeal to authority" fallacy. It is elitist and dismissive of productive argument.
We had a word for fact checkers back in the day: "Editors."
"Fact checkers" are just editors that nobody hired to edit their work. If you are going to argue, ARGUE. That is what a "fact check" actually is β an argument.
So cut the bullcrap and publish "editorials" thatβ¦
"Fact checkers" are just editors that nobody hired to edit their work. If you are going to argue, ARGUE. That is what a "fact check" actually is β an argument.
So cut the bullcrap and publish "editorials" thatβ¦
Loading suggestions...