When seeking knowledge you do not put a limit on your sources, you expand them. Being spoon-fed information from an "approved" source is a path to dependency and poor choices.
This is a prime example of how our rights can be crushed without most people even noticing that it’s happened.
There is no democratic mandate for any of thd 500+ Fact Checking organizations.
There is no useful mechanism for appeal against the actions of so-called fact checkers.
There are two earlier parts to this investigation, with links right near the top of this, the third and final part.
None of these articles are long and well worth honouring the author on this less well explored topic. I doubt you’ll trip over as comprehensive yet concentrated set of articles.
Depressingly, there may be more “fact checkers”, taking tax-payers money to lies to their fellow citizens than there are those who persistently seek to share truthful information.
I recall reading that UK’s “77th Squadron” of the British Army had hired 20,000 people to conduct whatever their internal mandates are.
If there are people out there who’ve acted in such a capacity (or are still inside a fact checking system), I’d be very grateful to hear from them.
Not knowing how they work is a major handicap in seeking sometimes to bypass their efforts.
I wonder what are their weakest links, meaning from honest people to members of the general public?
Speaking personally, I know I have attracted significant attention from the agents of those I call the perpetrators, from quite early on.
I used to use Twitter a lot, but it became extraordinarily toxic and tweets were responded to in bulk by people whose job it was to be as unpleasant as possible. There’s a strong sense of playground bullying on the platform. I’m not good at coping with that. Eventually, I withdrew from the platform in my real name because the entire experience became so toxic that it negatively affected my mental health. I maintained very limited review using pseudonyms. While I can post using those, it’s pointless. In fact, it would be pointless even attempting to use it. Despite the heralded statements about lifting censorship, I don’t believe that for a moment. It’s simple for the platform operators to make posts less- or invisible. Nobody who the perpetrators don’t want to be heard can ever be heard there.
That’s true for me almost everywhere. Comments below YouTube videos are deleted in real time. You might guess it’s immensely frustrating. It’s why I use Telegram almost exclusively. The extent of censorship is unknown to me, but it isn’t zero. Other means of limiting message spread are used. Similarly, Substack allows you to take responsibility for anything you write, but plenty of opportunities to squash one’s reach outside of Substack exist. This is why I emphasize how vital re-use of my material is. I cannot push it further. It’s simply not allowed.
“Struggles over which knowledge will become hegemonic are often the struggles of professions seeking markets, power, and legitimacy” Tereza Østbø Kuldova
Apart from the funding issues, who checks that the fact-checkers are competent so to do? BBC Verify appears to be run by people who cannot analyse scientific papers, and base their facts on what the government or "Settled Science" says those facts should be. As time passes more and more of those so-called facts turn out to be nothing of the sort, and are prophesies, fake research or frank lies.
"Fact checkers" work much like pedophiles do: "[T]their main targets are children, students and journalists" because it's harder to mislead functioning, well-adjusted adults.
Unfortunately, “media literacy” doesn’t begin with how to correctly write an article. Adverbs are constantly used within reporting but as soon as they are typed... it becomes an opinion not factual.
“Fact Checking” relies on adverbs as convincing evidence of wrong or right. First, “fact checking” picks their own poison to check. Somewhere along the line, “fact checking” redefined “correct” and “incorrect”... there is no 80% correct; it’s one or the other.
Fact Checking is always self serving. It is always used to alter or reinforce a position. It is always biased and sometimes prejudice.
“Fact Checking” is a method to drive home a message without a story, fact checking appears like a magic genie... out of nowhere. Questions are asked only by the Fact Checker, answers are only provided by the Fact Checker, and there is no response. This alone makes it an editorial but is always presented as factual.
Newsrooms used to call this “proofing”, it was incorporated to ensure the story was factual and it was kept internal not displayed as some sort of miracle accomplished. Fact Checking is consumed by lazy people who would rather eat a hotdog instead of steak because its easier to chew.
"Media Literacy" is just another propaganda arm, trying to fly under the radar by pretending it's for your "safety" while funnelling you toward prime propaganda sources like the WHO and the CDC.
Their backers give the game away every time.
(And I'm going to add the word 'safety' to all the other weasel words like diversity, equity and inclusion).
When seeking knowledge you do not put a limit on your sources, you expand them. Being spoon-fed information from an "approved" source is a path to dependency and poor choices.
This is a prime example of how our rights can be crushed without most people even noticing that it’s happened.
There is no democratic mandate for any of thd 500+ Fact Checking organizations.
There is no useful mechanism for appeal against the actions of so-called fact checkers.
There are two earlier parts to this investigation, with links right near the top of this, the third and final part.
None of these articles are long and well worth honouring the author on this less well explored topic. I doubt you’ll trip over as comprehensive yet concentrated set of articles.
Depressingly, there may be more “fact checkers”, taking tax-payers money to lies to their fellow citizens than there are those who persistently seek to share truthful information.
I recall reading that UK’s “77th Squadron” of the British Army had hired 20,000 people to conduct whatever their internal mandates are.
If there are people out there who’ve acted in such a capacity (or are still inside a fact checking system), I’d be very grateful to hear from them.
Not knowing how they work is a major handicap in seeking sometimes to bypass their efforts.
I wonder what are their weakest links, meaning from honest people to members of the general public?
Speaking personally, I know I have attracted significant attention from the agents of those I call the perpetrators, from quite early on.
I used to use Twitter a lot, but it became extraordinarily toxic and tweets were responded to in bulk by people whose job it was to be as unpleasant as possible. There’s a strong sense of playground bullying on the platform. I’m not good at coping with that. Eventually, I withdrew from the platform in my real name because the entire experience became so toxic that it negatively affected my mental health. I maintained very limited review using pseudonyms. While I can post using those, it’s pointless. In fact, it would be pointless even attempting to use it. Despite the heralded statements about lifting censorship, I don’t believe that for a moment. It’s simple for the platform operators to make posts less- or invisible. Nobody who the perpetrators don’t want to be heard can ever be heard there.
That’s true for me almost everywhere. Comments below YouTube videos are deleted in real time. You might guess it’s immensely frustrating. It’s why I use Telegram almost exclusively. The extent of censorship is unknown to me, but it isn’t zero. Other means of limiting message spread are used. Similarly, Substack allows you to take responsibility for anything you write, but plenty of opportunities to squash one’s reach outside of Substack exist. This is why I emphasize how vital re-use of my material is. I cannot push it further. It’s simply not allowed.
Best wishes and thank you,
Mike
“Struggles over which knowledge will become hegemonic are often the struggles of professions seeking markets, power, and legitimacy” Tereza Østbø Kuldova
Apart from the funding issues, who checks that the fact-checkers are competent so to do? BBC Verify appears to be run by people who cannot analyse scientific papers, and base their facts on what the government or "Settled Science" says those facts should be. As time passes more and more of those so-called facts turn out to be nothing of the sort, and are prophesies, fake research or frank lies.
"Fact checkers" work much like pedophiles do: "[T]their main targets are children, students and journalists" because it's harder to mislead functioning, well-adjusted adults.
Unfortunately, “media literacy” doesn’t begin with how to correctly write an article. Adverbs are constantly used within reporting but as soon as they are typed... it becomes an opinion not factual.
“Fact Checking” relies on adverbs as convincing evidence of wrong or right. First, “fact checking” picks their own poison to check. Somewhere along the line, “fact checking” redefined “correct” and “incorrect”... there is no 80% correct; it’s one or the other.
Fact Checking is always self serving. It is always used to alter or reinforce a position. It is always biased and sometimes prejudice.
“Fact Checking” is a method to drive home a message without a story, fact checking appears like a magic genie... out of nowhere. Questions are asked only by the Fact Checker, answers are only provided by the Fact Checker, and there is no response. This alone makes it an editorial but is always presented as factual.
Newsrooms used to call this “proofing”, it was incorporated to ensure the story was factual and it was kept internal not displayed as some sort of miracle accomplished. Fact Checking is consumed by lazy people who would rather eat a hotdog instead of steak because its easier to chew.
"Media Literacy" is just another propaganda arm, trying to fly under the radar by pretending it's for your "safety" while funnelling you toward prime propaganda sources like the WHO and the CDC.
Their backers give the game away every time.
(And I'm going to add the word 'safety' to all the other weasel words like diversity, equity and inclusion).