NEW REPORT: Impartial ‘Fact-Checkers’ Driven by Political Prejudices
This study on fact-checkers proves that none of the fact-checking is done in a purely logical manner. What does that mean? It means First Officer Spock is not on the bridge. The report also shows how the political leanings and prejudices of the checker are revealed in the results. So, who do you trust?
As Written By Thomas D. Williams, P.H.d for Breitbart:
A new study on the recent fact-checking trend to separate “fake news” from real reporting found that in the majority of cases, the fact-checkers are just as subject to bias as the news they evaluate.
The report underscored the importance of subjective judgments in the process of fact-checking, amply borne out by numerous examples where fact-checking organizations betray significant political and cultural biases in their assessments.
The results of the study, executed by Daniele Scalea of the Machiavelli Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Rome, were presented at the Italian Parliament Wednesday during an academic conference on the topic of fake news and journalism.
Many of the errors proceed from broadening the scope of fact-checking to include statements that express opinion, analysis or prediction.
Since fact-checkers do not limit themselves to appraising objectively verifiable assertions, the study revealed, they pronounce judgments not only about facts, but also about what attacks are fair, what arguments are reasonable, what forecasts are probable, and what language is appropriate.
In the majority of cases, the report continues, fact-checkers weigh the validity of arguments, rather than checking facts. This exercise involves significant space for human error and entails a good dose of subjective opinion, despite the pretension of impartial analysis.
As Glenn Greenwald had already noted in a 2011 essay titled “PolitiFact and the scam of neutral expertise,” Politifact “undermines its own credibility when it purports to…..
KEEP READING HERE: