The Arbiters of Truth

[Walker]

This link details what has been obvious.

Invasion of the Fact Checkers
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... t-checkers

“In the past five years, a cadre of fact-checkers has marched through the institutions of journalism and installed itself in the U.S. media as a privatized, quasi-governmental regulatory agency.”

[Scott Mayers]

This link details what has been obvious.

Invasion of the Fact Checkers
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... t-checkers

“In the past five years, a cadre of fact-checkers has marched through the institutions of journalism and installed itself in the U.S. media as a privatized, quasi-governmental regulatory agency.”

All that's needed then is the checker of the fact-checkers then, right?

Call them fact-checker²

Oh, maybe we need a fact-checker³ to check the fact-checker²?

Fact-checking is valuable if it is understood to vet the sources without bias. I think what we need to be concerned about is the moderators or censors of information where they may get comfortable in some form of anonymity. Censoring of what is 'fact' or not is the real danger. But where fact-checking exists, they just need to be sure that those CLAIMING something somewhere is ACCOUNTABLE to the claim. Reporters are expected to be neutral and have to be differentiated from journalists in general, who may include their personal opinions beyond mere reporting.

[mickthinks]

Fact Checkers

Waaa—Why do I have to stick to facts—waaaaaaa!

[Walker]

My condition is, the discussion must be serious.

I'd be much obliged, if that request is honourably, honoured*.

I'm also aware that anyone is free, according to the dictates of their identity, to take a shit anywhere, even where people are walking, or having a serious dialogue, or both.

In life, one learns the advantages of stepping over shit, and, how to do it.

Voila.





* Much as I honor the preference of spelling freaks.

[Walker]

This link details what has been obvious.

Invasion of the Fact Checkers
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... t-checkers

“In the past five years, a cadre of fact-checkers has marched through the institutions of journalism and installed itself in the U.S. media as a privatized, quasi-governmental regulatory agency.”

All that's needed then is the checker of the fact-checkers then, right?

Call them fact-checker²

Oh, maybe we need a fact-checker³ to check the fact-checker²?

Fact-checking is valuable if it is understood to vet the sources without bias. I think what we need to be concerned about is the moderators or censors of information where they may get comfortable in some form of anonymity. Censoring of what is 'fact' or not is the real danger. But where fact-checking exists, they just need to be sure that those CLAIMING something somewhere is ACCOUNTABLE to the claim. Reporters are expected to be neutral and have to be differentiated from journalists in general, who may include their personal opinions beyond mere reporting.

These situations happen, without a basis of measurement.

[Walker]

In case you missed it …


- In the United States, the last secular Arbiter of Truth, is a majority opinion of the SCOTUS.
- It’s the last appeal.
- Even if Congress passes a law, The SCOTUS will be able to overturn the law, because it will be unconstitutional, according to the Final Arbiter.
- The SCOTUS has become a political body, which is not the intention of the constitution.

- Somewhere in this contradiction, is a false premise.

*

Currently, a nominee for the SCOTUS, has just declared, while under Congressional review, that she can’t define what a woman is.

Soon, she will most likely become awesomely powerful.


Commentary: Ain’t that somthin’.

[Walker]

...

Hiding behind babies is shit. I seriously step over you ... better duck low.

[Walker]

[mickthinks]

How it started:

My condition is, the discussion must be serious.

How it’s going:

lol

[Walker]

That is quite a serious posting, because, that's a logical extrapolation of what actually happened.

Ms. Brown-Jackson knew going into the confirmation hearings that she could say just about anything, or not say about anything, and she would be confirmed by a simple majority.

The cartoon makes that point, probably too clearly.

But yes, it is a most serious posting because this is likely the most radical, legislate-from-the-bench, incompetent judge to ever sit as a Supreme.

And, thanks to the stupid Republicans, she breezed right in with minimal push-back, despite all the bullshit spouted by the media and POTUS.

*

However, the response to the serious posting, is seriously lacking in seriousness.

The source of the response is explanation enough, for that.

[Walker]

[Walker]

Care to seriously answer Lieutenant Columbo's serious question?

Or, is such a feat beyond the capacity of clown trolls?

[Walker]

This link details what has been obvious.

Invasion of the Fact Checkers
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... t-checkers

“In the past five years, a cadre of fact-checkers has marched through the institutions of journalism and installed itself in the U.S. media as a privatized, quasi-governmental regulatory agency.”

All that's needed then is the checker of the fact-checkers then, right?

Call them fact-checker²

Oh, maybe we need a fact-checker³ to check the fact-checker²?

Fact-checking is valuable if it is understood to vet the sources without bias. I think what we need to be concerned about is the moderators or censors of information where they may get comfortable in some form of anonymity. Censoring of what is 'fact' or not is the real danger. But where fact-checking exists, they just need to be sure that those CLAIMING something somewhere is ACCOUNTABLE to the claim. Reporters are expected to be neutral and have to be differentiated from journalists in general, who may include their personal opinions beyond mere reporting.

These situations happen, without a basis of measurement.

Life is the measure of all things, lest we forget.

[Iwannaplato]

Fact Checkers

Waaa—Why do I have to stick to facts—waaaaaaa!

Wow, what an oversimplification. It just assumes that the organizations claiming to be authorities as fact checkers are independent, professional, thorough, etc. When in fact, fact checker organizations have been found to have industry investment and control in some cases, to assing 'experts' to do the fact checking who are not experts and to mislead via their headlines. Re the last: the headline will say something is not true while the 'article' will then give a more nuanced or even contradictory analysis. People just see a fact-checker giving an explanation and assume, in many cases, that something on top of a Google Seach, claiming to be an objective fact checker, gosh, might have ties to Google, or the pharmaceutical company or...and the list goes on.

[Walker]

- US Senator: "Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?"

- US Judge Brown Jackson: "I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."

US Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.


- A law professor comments:
https://www.newsweek.com/should-supreme ... on-1695961