Re: Ove Interest?

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

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.
 

Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.

Roger Merriman