Proof that Snopes and AP have no Business being being "Fact Checkers"

Have to consider your source - dude.

The Free Thought Project.... and this is truly an odd one.

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Free Thought Project reports some real news as well as conspiracy and left-wing sensationalism.

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

I can't find any funding source for this one.

It wasn't that long ago; if you questioned the Snopes narrative about Sandy Hook, you could find yourself in big trouble if not outright banned.

That only added to the conspiracy and made a mockery of "deny ignorance"

originally posted by: FyreByrd

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

That page right there is a great example of Orwellian mentality. Labeling everything outside of mainstream as "conspiracy theory and therefore false".

At the same time the Internet is flooded with genuine BS to prove the point that "information control" is needed.

Problem-Reaction-Solution.

originally posted by: olaru12
It wasn't that long ago; if you questioned the Snopes narrative about Sandy Hook, you could find yourself in big trouble if not outright banned.

That only added to the conspiracy.

Normally, if something is untrue, it has an expiration date and people eventually lose interest. This happens naturally. There is no need to "control" information, with the exception of the kind of information inciting crime. Anyone who attempts to, should be viewed with suspicion imo.

This scenario plays out a Million times a day:

1. Fact Checker dismisses story.

2. Crowds dismiss it on their naive trust of Fact Checker.

Anyone who cares to dig a little deeper into countless dismissed stories will find a treasure trove of Truth.

a reply to: Skyfloating

As I always say, do your own research and fact check everyone, even the fact-checkers.

For example I fact checked the free thought project, the writers of this opinion piece against AP and Snopes, and they don't fare well with anyone. Media Bias Fact Check lists them in the same category as Above Top Secret, Conspiracy-Pseudoscience with Mixed Factual Reporting. Except they are trying to present themselves as legit journalism.

Media Bias

I applaud you for bringing this up, we need to fact check everyone.

Edit: Fyre beat me to it, I didn't read the second page. I think to discredit someone with good clean history, like AP for example, those who go against them need to be at least as clean, if not better.

originally posted by: Kharron

I applaud you for bringing this up, we need to fact check everyone.

Including the fact checkers...most importantly.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Skyfloating

I wonder when this will start effecting ATS?????

There is an army of "debunkers" here and on every other major discussion site on the web. All with the same set of methods, narratives and pile ups on "sensitive" topics.

And thats why I refuse to give up the fight

Also they arent very good at it

a reply to: Skyfloating

I do understand these guys are mad though. Like they say, they didn't write the story, they just copied it. But they had it on their website. That would be like us, ATS, with all of our questionable material, claiming that we are legit journalists and when someone fact checks our forums - the admins claim, well, we didn't write that, we just copied it.

And they're mad and they even say that they're losing traffic and therefore money and have written that opinion after that happened -- which means motive for it.

Case in point. Within the last month, Snopes and the Associated Press both claimed that articles we wrote were false when they clearly were not. As a result of their illegitimate claims, the Free Thought Project has watched our website traffic drop.

So, I agree Sky, we need to fact check everyone. Some fall apart when we do, and some chug on, decade after decade.

Remember when AP had a competitor named Reuters?
They bought them out (in the interest of truth I'm sure)
Snopes has become the go-to fact check site which is quite the accomplishment for 2 people working from home.
"Who wants the truth? It's over at Bob's house!"
The web has changed the entire paradigm of how we discern reality in all it's forms.
The beauty of books is they can't change their text once printed.
As a student of history this is why I collect old books, written close to the times described within.
You quickly find certain themes have been endlessly repeated while important facts are ignored.
Today's propaganda is mostly based on lies of omission.
I think each passing generation has been steered farther from reality and remolded to fit the whims of our technocratic rulers.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

What are you talking about?

Reuters is still Reuters and never got sold to AP. It is owned by Thomson Reuters Corporation to this day.

Thomson Reuters

Associated Press is a non-for-profit unincorporated association of many companies world-wide, with no ownership.

AP 2017 Financials

a reply to: Skyfloating

It isn’t politically biased fact checking..

Most of those facts they are checking are objectively true or false..


Almost none of our political issues are subjective one side ,or both is lying..

Let’s compare narratives..

Example:

A) there is a vast leftist illuminati who controls the worlds media and uses them to discredit conservatives..


B) all the most informed people who have inside sources and have investigated the issues honestly and legitimately disagree with right wing policies...

It’s either one or the other..


Either.


A) the democrats are in a vast conspiracy to take all the guns and they are so quiet about it not one elected official in history has ever even proposed it.


B) there is no vast conspiracy to take all the guns.. it has always been political suicide to even suggest it and all the “gun grabber” rhetoric is propaganda meant to fool stupid people..





All of our political issues/narratives are either objectively true or false..


We might not have the data to accurately decide, but it is knowable to someone with the right data.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Skyfloating

It isn’t politically biased fact checking..

Most of those facts they are checking are objectively true or false..

Exactly.

a reply to: Kharron

I thought AP bought Reuters, I was wrong.
They were bought out by the Thompson Corporation in 2008.

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: Asktheanimals
Associated Press is a non-for-profit unincorporated association of many companies world-wide, with no ownership.

AP 2017 Financials

A non-profit formed by for profit corporations.
This means they will be objective?
When all our major media is owned by 6 corporations?

originally posted by: Skyfloating


Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Is that your mantra?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Remember when AP had a competitor named Reuters?
They bought them out (in the interest of truth I'm sure)
Snopes has become the go-to fact check site which is quite the accomplishment for 2 people working from home.
"Who wants the truth? It's over at Bob's house!"
The web has changed the entire paradigm of how we discern reality in all it's forms.
The beauty of books is they can't change their text once printed.
As a student of history this is why I collect old books, written close to the times described within.
You quickly find certain themes have been endlessly repeated while important facts are ignored.
Today's propaganda is mostly based on lies of omission.
I think each passing generation has been steered farther from reality and remolded to fit the whims of our technocratic rulers.

Reuters is still out there. www.reuters.com...

Do some basic research, dude.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Skyfloating

It isn’t politically biased fact checking..

Most of those facts they are checking are objectively true or false..


Almost none of our political issues are subjective one side ,or both is lying..

Let’s compare narratives..

Example:

A) there is a vast leftist illuminati who controls the worlds media and uses them to discredit conservatives..


B) all the most informed people who have inside sources and have investigated the issues honestly and legitimately disagree with right wing policies...

It’s either one or the other..


Either.


A) the democrats are in a vast conspiracy to take all the guns and they are so quiet about it not one elected official in history has ever even proposed it.


B) there is no vast conspiracy to take all the guns.. it has always been political suicide to even suggest it and all the “gun grabber” rhetoric is propaganda meant to fool stupid people..





All of our political issues/narratives are either objectively true or false..


We might not have the data to accurately decide, but it is knowable to someone with the right data.

Not all that simple at all - lots of shades between True and False. That's part of the problem with - well - what to say and stay kind - Black and White thinking while the world is grey. It takes study and effort to think in greys and even harder to decide - so let somebody else decide for you no matter how delusional or deceptive.

I did some tests on the fact checkers in response to diseases and food chemistry and found that they just parrot a lot of flawed interpretations of research. They are not a good source of information. When half the stuff I checked was not correct because they did not look properly at the whole picture and accessed only evidence that backed their beliefs, I figured I would never use them as a reference even if their evidence showed the same as I was saying.

I showed my daughter some of their false conclusions when she was believing in fact checker. She does not use fact checker anymore at least when discussing things with me. I blew her fact checker conclusions right out of the world twice. They matched the evidence they chose, but the evidence was misapplied.

a reply to: rickymouse

But.. were your evidences backed?

..
.


The same problem, as always. Whom do we trust? And why?