Re: scientists are going to bluesky

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>

Yet, many falsehoods were promoted as truths by "fact checkers" during
corona.

>
Cite two....
>

Examples of Fact-Checker Errors
     Vaccine Safety Claims:
         Early in the pandemic, some fact-checkers claimed that there was no evidence linking vaccines to serious health issues. However, subsequent reports revealed rare but significant adverse effects associated with certain vaccines, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine causing blood clots. This led to confusion and criticism regarding the initial assessments that downplayed these risks3
         5
         .
     Origin of the Virus:
         Fact-checkers initially dismissed claims suggesting that the coronavirus could have originated from a laboratory leak as conspiracy theories. However, as investigations continued, this narrative gained traction in scientific discussions, leading some to question whether the initial fact-checking was too dismissive of legitimate inquiries into the virus's origins1
         4
         .
     Misinterpretation of Data:
         There were instances where fact-checkers misrepresented studies related to COVID-19 transmission and vaccine efficacy. For example, claims about vaccines altering DNA or causing severe side effects were categorically denied based on early data, but later studies indicated that while severe side effects are rare, they do occur and merit closer examination5
         .
     Repeated Debunks of Similar Claims:
         A study highlighted that many false narratives regarding COVID-19 were debunked multiple times across different platforms and countries. This redundancy suggested a failure in the fact-checking process to effectively communicate and eliminate persistent misinformation2
         .
     Political Claims and Misinformation:
         Fact-checkers faced challenges when assessing political statements about COVID-19 responses from various leaders. For instance, claims made by politicians regarding the effectiveness of travel restrictions or the availability of medical supplies were often labeled misleading or false without full context, leading to debates about the accuracy of these assessments over time3
         4
         .
Snopes and PolitiFact's Diverging Ratings
A study examining over 24,000 fact-checking articles revealed that Snopes and PolitiFact often disagreed on the truthfulness of similar claims. For instance, they rated the claim about fatalities during the January 6 Capitol riot differently: Snopes rated it as true while PolitiFact labeled it false due to differing interpretations of the numbers involved. This highlights how subjective interpretations can lead to conflicting ratings between fact-checking organizations1
.
Glenn Kessler's Controversial Fact-Check
Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post faced criticism for a fact-check regarding Senator Tom Cotton's comments about COVID-19 relief checks going to prisoners. Initially rated with two Pinocchios for lacking context, Kessler later downgraded the rating after a court filing confirmed Cotton's statement about a specific prisoner receiving funds. Critics argued that Kessler's adjustments were insufficient and indicative of bias in his evaluations3
4
.
General Observations on Fact-Checking
Studies have shown that fact-checking is inherently complex and can lead to variability among different organizations. For example, discrepancies in how statements are selected for fact-checking and how their truthfulness is graded can result in significant differences in outcomes. This variability suggests that while fact-checkers aim for accuracy, their methodologies can lead to inconsistent conclusions5
. These instances illustrate that while fact-checkers strive to provide accurate assessments, they are not infallible and can sometimes misinterpret or misrepresent claims based on subjective judgment or methodological differences.