Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/14/2025 10:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/14/2025 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/14/2025 10:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:

I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how- alternative-facts- threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.

>
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to call itself 'fair and objective'.

>
Examples? And examples of their bias?
>
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
>
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
>
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
>
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
>

>
This is not a new problem. And should surprise no one.
>
https://www.allsides.com/blog/6-ways-fact-checkers-are-biased

Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How should we check? Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
 I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably every other - spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish to point to one or several incidences of failure and use that, as some do, to condemn an entire system.
 You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with implications that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed or enforced, that laws are worthless. (I'm aware that you're careful not to say that outright, but only by implication.)
 Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any information source other than his own imagination. He proudly says or implies that no outside sources can be trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts are real and true.
 Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not every opinion is correct. On most issues, it should be possible to do sufficient tests, or research, to determine what is true and what is not. The hardest part is finding people who will agree that their own biases are mistaken.
 To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people here who has admitted from time to time that you were wrong.
 

How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy Statement, which was enforced by censorship and manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well (those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971