Let Them Eat Facts: Why Fact Checking Is Mostly Useless In Convincing Voters
from the feeling-entitled-to-your-own-facts dept
Last week I wrote a bit about the ridiculous and misguided backlash against Facebook over the election results. The basis of the claim was that there were a bunch of fake or extremely misleading stories shared on the site by Trump supporters, and some felt that helped swing the election (and, yes, there were also fake stories shared by Clinton supporters -- but apparently sharing fake news was nearly twice as common among Trump supporters than Clinton supporters). I still think this analysis blaming Facebook is wrong. There was confirmation bias, absolutely, but it's not as if a lack of fake news would have changed people's minds. Many were just passing along the fake news because it fit the worldview they already have.In response to that last post, someone complained that I was arguing that "facts don't matter" and worried that this would just lead to more and more lies and fake news from all sides. I hope that's not the case, but as I said in my reply, it's somewhat more complicated. Some folks liked that reply a lot so I'm expanding on it a bit in this post. And the key point is to discuss why "fact checking" doesn't really work in convincing people whom to vote for. This doesn't mean I'm against fact checking, or think that facts don't matter. Quite the reverse. I think more facts are really important, and I've spent lots of time over the years calling out bogus news stories based on factual errors.
But here's the problem: the general business of fact checking seems to merely serve to, again, reinforce and retrench opinions, rather than change them. As I said in my comment, there are a large group of people out there that view the whole fact checking business itself as a sort of condescending "let them eat facts" kind of thing, in which they're being scolded for believing the "wrong" kind of thing. And this has lead (not surprisingly) to widespread attacks on fact checkers themselves as being "biased." You don't have to look very hard to find (often conservative-leaning) publications argue that "fact checkers" are biased against their views. The famed debunking site Snopes has come in for particular attack this year as just a liberal front. In the past few months, any time I've mentioned Snopes, or seen someone else link to it in our comments, another comment will mock them from linking to such a "biased" or "Clinton-supporting" site. Snopes itself, for it's part, has put up a somewhat amusing page with all of the contradictory accusations of bias it has received over the years from people who dislike its fact checking on certain politicians.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously stated "You're entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." It's a good quote, but the problem is that plenty of people do feel entitled to their own facts these days. And straight up fact checking seems like the wrong approach. In psychology, there's a concept known as cognitive dissonance, describing how people basically trick themselves into dealing with contradictory beliefs (the term is technically about the uncomfortable position people are in put in because of the contradictory ideas, but it is commonly used to describe how people effectively trick themselves to get out of that state). It seems to describe how many people end up dealing with inconvenient facts. They don't change their mind -- they just come up with an excuse as to why the facts presented are wrong or biased. And when they're presented in the form of "fact checking" from a big site or news publication, it's easier than ever to dismiss them, because we're told over and over again that "you can't trust the media." That gives people an out -- when they come across inconvenient facts, they insist that there's bias or a problem with the source while not dealing with the actual underlying facts. And studies have shown that fact checking can not just fail to convince people in political debates, it can actually make them cling more strongly to their false beliefs.
I'm not quite sure how to deal with this, but I wonder if the overall approach needs to change. It's pretty uncommon to see people change their minds when just handed a big stack of facts. Some have suggested that convincing people they're wrong on something is so complex that it has to involve them literally transforming how they think of themselves, which is not going to happen when you just throw a pile of facts at them. In my experience, the times I've been convinced to change my mind, or seen others change their minds, it tends to come when there are long drawn out conversations, exploring the issues in more depth -- with lots of back and forth. But also it tends to happen in environments where the stakes are lower (e.g., often private, rather than public discussions, where no one "loses face" for realizing they were wrong).
Given that, I still don't know what the solution is, but merely pumping up the fact checking isn't going to do much to change anyone's minds. It just angers some, and reinforces the feelings of superiority of others.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cognitive dissonance, fact checking, facts, journalism, truth
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Mike, you are right
Your final thoughts are spot on. Convincing someone else they are wrong only seems to happen when the convincer approaches it with an attitude of genuine respect and compassion, when the convincee feels they are in a safe place to accept they are wrong. It's hard to think of an example of that in today's political or media scene.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Best to let people fight it out among themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
requisite movie quote..
-- John Winger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I doubt it
Almost all of mainstream media is fake and most of it in favor of the Dems. So I doubt this little statistic very much as most all liberal news these days is fake, fraudulent, misleading or outright lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Facts opinions as fact
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-cli nton-recessions-more-frequent-under-rep/
Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/09/matt-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-o pen-carry/
Half True
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's are other factors as well
The problem is that these aren't easily fixable issues. And as a country, we've done a miserable job with education: I routinely encounter high school graduates who don't know what a covalent bond is, what happened at Yalta, or who Miles Davis was -- just to pick a few items. I find this alarming and incomprehensible: how can we possibly call ourselves a leading civilization if we don't teach at least the rudimentary basics to our kids?
Fact-checking won't work with these people either. They might accept the facts, but they can't do anything with them. If you say to them "I'm concerned about a Krystalnacht in the US" then they won't agree or disagree because they CAN'T: they don't know what it is.
None of which absolves Facebook or Twitter or the rest from their role in this, which I think is substantial. We learned how to handle moderation online decades ago; they should have learned from us (and especially from our mistakes). They should have done MUCH better, doubly so that they have access to software tools and computing horsepower far beyond anything we had. They also have tens of millions of dollars to spend on it; we did it with no budget at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So much wrong in this post
Yes, and the confirmation bias and ignoring of facts is no more evident then Hillary supporters. Wikileaks couldn't publish enough dirt on her, the DNC and the media to change a liberals mind.
So I understand the gist of your post, I don't understand why it pretends that any of this is a problem with the right more than the left???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's are other factors as well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, 1000 times yes for this
If we could get the left to stop the name calling and labeling and actually discuss policy we might get somewhere. Until then they will keep losing.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost -900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I doubt it
Almost all of mainstream media is fake and most of it in favor of the Dems.
This assumes that both candidates are equal in both their good deeds and douchebaggery.
It's possible, just maybe possible that the candidates aren't (wait for it) equal?
Or is it just a requirement that say, if Trump tweets "she's a fat old hag" that the media must find Hillary tweeting something similar, just so the coverage is equal? (even if that means making something up?)
Is that what you're advocating for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I doubt it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Facts are NOT the only issue.
Let bring up an example.
Person A hates the people in group B, because a person from group B used the groups perceived logic to justify an action person from group B took against Person A.
In one case lets say that Person A was a total angel. Then it implies that Group B might be evil.
In another case lets say the Person A was up to no good. Then it implies that Group B is not evil, but attempting to acquire justice.
In this way, the facts are less of a concern than the events or actions, which may be ambiguous, that actually took place.
Facts alone are worth little, which is why a lot of people do not give a shit about them. Everyone wants context, without context 1 + 1 = 2 is just fucking worthless information in the grand scheme.
Motivation, reasoning, agenda, angle, the juicy bits... that is what people want. The facts can largely be damned until we reach a point to where something must be proven to ensure that motivation, reasoning, agenda, angle, or those juicy bits a fitting a narrative being presented! Say, like in the court of law. But in the court of public opinion? Well yea, fuck those facts!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So much wrong in this post
Yes, and the confirmation bias and ignoring of facts is no more evident then Hillary supporters. Wikileaks couldn't publish enough dirt on her, the DNC and the media to change a liberals mind.
Perhaps they should've published something from the Trump campaign, you know, just so it didn't appear that they're biased?
I thought you guys didn't like bias in news? ("fair and balanced")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I doubt it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I doubt it
And if Trump goes on to say he drives the speed limit when he was clocked doing 66 in a 65 zone while Hillary says nothing while her campaign pays people to go to Trump rallies and start fights so the press can write about violence at Trump rallies, then Hillary is, statistically speaking, more honest than Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I doubt it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So much wrong in this post
Black Republican = Uncle Tom. In their mind it is not possible for a black person to be non-democrat unless they have been brain washed or fallen to some slave like control scheme by racist whitey.
Female Agency = Democrat. Any female not espousing leftist ideals is similarly just another oppressed or silenced agent by the right. These women have no business thinking for themselves, they must follow the narrative set by the Woman elite if they want rights or consideration.
Lets just hope the island does not capsize because if facts really had a place in these discussions, they might look a whole lot different!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
yea, this is another stark reminder of how mentally incompetent you have to be to serve the democratic party. So much back stabbing in the ranks an no one really seems all that pissed off about it!
One would think they would clean their own house before going after another house. While I am an independent, I did at least take notice that the Repukes were considerably more honorable to their voters during their primaries than the Demturds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly -puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bern ie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
This, I think, though I'd suggest pretty much all the sides need to cease with the labeling, realize that identity politics sucks for everyone, and just start talking again. How many Republican candidates can Democrats compare to Hitler before the comparison loses all meaning. The danger is that when a Hitler comes along, nobody is going to listen. How many democrats can the Republicans wave off as "communist" or "socialist" before the comparison loses all meaning? The danger is that when a Stalin comes along nobody will listen.
We've all gotten so busy calling each other "godless", "immoral", "liars", "evil", "Nazis", and "fascists" that we've forgotten that we probably agree on 75% of public policy and we just have to work out the other quarter. That isn't even a big deal, except nobody is talking to each other any more....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presiden tial_candidates
Not sure we can classify this as the first successful campaign, unless you are restricting it to nomination by one of the two main political parties.
I personally would only classify a campaign as successful if they win the Presidency, so there has yet to be any actually successful Female campaigns to date in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
My point is that the left are calling the right all sorts of names while ignoring the very real sins of their own candidate.
How exactly are they ignoring it? As you pointed out, it's everywhere. You're making an assumption.
It's possible - just possible - that despite Hillary's misdeeds they feel that Trump is just a bigger asshole as a person than Hillary.
In terms of transparency, the release of all those documents leaves nothing to the imagination. With Trump however, there's the mystery of his taxes (or more to the point, lack of taxes), his "university" (which I believe there's still supposed to be a trial coming up), his definition of "blind trust" (or as we on the left call it - clear conflict of interest). I could go on and on - right after I'm done bringing up Benghazi (after 7 investigations/33 hearings cleared her).
But we can certainly ignore those things, can't we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Holy crap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
With the internet, you can find other people with similar ideas as yours so it is harder to marginalize those ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
This is such a bad habit to break, labels are a go to piece of information for everyone.
Of course you are talking just like George Washington in his farewell address. But I do agree, we should stop referring to each other by label so easily because it only foments division. I am guilty of using labels myself but do wish to dispense with them. Do you have any ideas on how this might be accomplished?
I would personally outlaw any formation or mention of political parties within the government or public sector under threat of the revocation of voting rights and banning from public service or employment.
if you want to run a political event you and every attendee can longer vote or run for office!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
That is why I said at the time that executive orders should not be used. Frankly I much prefer a split of power so that things get moderated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
One little difference between these claims that sticks out.
In the first link:
We can’t say with certainty, because Trump’s campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our question.
And in the second:
Sanders’ camp pointed us to research by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank. This data is different from the more familiar measurements for a few reasons.
Perhaps if Trump "showed his work" and not left it to them to reverse engineer his claim to try and decipher where it came from, the ratings would've been a bit more similar.
That's not the fault of Politifact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
I think if you do that, the backlash would be terrifying. Instead, I think having a group of Americans with a pulpit hammer home the idea that party affiliation is shitty and encouraging voters to remain independent is the better way to get to your goal. Because I ultimately agree: having a two party system is largely to blame for easy and binary labels. We should encourage Americans to either have an insane number of parties, or none at all, with the latter being my preference....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Holy crap
Facts, Data, and Truth DO influence & change beliefs quit a lot. The problem is, like you said, the many popular outlets feeding the bullshit. The issue is trust, if a known liar is spitting facts then those facts find small or slow purchase compared to a trusted source where they take root and grow quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, you are right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are some things, however, that reasonable people can't disagree on. Trump said he never said climate change was a Chinese hoax. Well, yes he did. He tweeted it. We have it on the record. Whether *something happened* isn't open to debate, and when a candidate claims something did or didn't happen, but in fact the opposite is true, someone needs to point that out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
Well, yes, there's that. Much like the fake debates set up currently on tv stations like ESPN, where two sides debate a question with only one right, and obvious, answer, but they setup two sides because conflict sells. I think that's happened in America, in large because of cable news on both sides of the aisle. Eventually it, like ESPN, will lose enough subscribers that they'll either change or die off.
Either way, the solution is to get rid of the aisle, or make the aisle not mean anything....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott Greenfield opines similarly
E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not Facts opinions as fact
"Gaetz’s statement is a one-year snapshot that is misleading."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not sure I would trust fact checking through an organization that needs someone to tell them where & how to authenticate facts.
I don't have a problem with someone saying, hey, show your work, but that is not exactly what is happening here.
It looks like Trump was just rated lower for being nothing more than an uncooperative team player. That stinks of corruption. Fact checking just become opinionated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple fix?
Is it time to ban Twitter, because limiting comments to 140 characters leads to a lack of depth? (This comment is 140 characters in length).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So a fact checker is running their facts through another party?
I am not sure I would trust fact checking through an organization that needs someone to tell them where & how to authenticate facts.
No - the fact checker is asking the person who stated the "fact" to show where they got that statistic from. Which should be a simple thing to show.
I mean, what's to say he didn't make it up?
I don't have a problem with someone saying, hey, show your work, but that is not exactly what is happening here.
It seems like Trump had a problem with it, as he didn't bother to respond. I suspect that's why he was graded differently. Just like someone who used a calculator to do their math homework, gets a failing grade, and then complains when the instructions clearly say "show all work."
It looks like Trump was just rated lower for being nothing more than an uncooperative team player. That stinks of corruption. Fact checking just become opinionated.
An uncooperative team player is not a team player.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Case in point, referring to the email server story he said something to the effect of "Hillary acid washed her server to clean all data off it." In the next breath he said she bleached it. One of the networks fact checked "acid washing" and declared him a liar because she did not pour acid over the server.
While he said something that would be false if taken literally many of us understood that he simply screwed up his terminology. Looking at his entire statement in context though it is obvious what point he was trying to make.
Things like this cause the people to highly distrust the media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Perhaps Politifact should have held the story until they could do a better job researching from where Trump’s number may have come.
You're going on the premise that the number is correct - I'm not sure how wise that is.
Let's say you eat at a restaurant. You've seen the menu. You know the prices.
When you get the check, you see something odd as far as the total.
Do you:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The shooting rate in Chicago is up
Is this Chicago, the city, or Chicago the metropolitan area?
What % of these shootings are suicides? (Approximately 2/3 of shooting deaths nationwide are suicides; MSM never tells you that.)
How to lie with statisticsXXXXXXXXXXfacts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) Religion. If you can hold up a fact that says abortions saves lives that's great, but that doesn't mean much when held up against a religious belief. And you also can't distill it down into a single issue, if abortion is bad because of a Religious ideal then just getting rid of that ideal isn't something you can do or convince someone to do. Religious values, just like cultural values, are built over decades and centuries.
2) Does a fact always matter? A good example of this one Clinton's e-mails. It is a fact that she violated Executive Order 13526, which is an administrative law applicable to the Secretary of State. She wasn't prosecuted for it, but she still broke the law. To some that fact doesn't matter unless you were prosecuted, and to others it does.
3) It is extremely difficult, even impossible in some cases, to stick to the facts. I think Climate Change is a good example here. It's easy to point out facts that Climage Change is real, and most people (including head in the sand Republican's) can agree to that. But it's hard to point out facts about the severity, because no one really knows and there are dozens of different answers out there. Makes it easy to dismiss or ignore an entire argument when half of it is factual and the other isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
Donald Trump's campaign manager was Kellyanne Conway. I'm not 100% sure on the fact, but its being put out there that she is the first female to run a campaign that ended with the election of the candidate as POTUS (therefore calling it a successful presidential campaign).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think George Carlin nailed it with these two quotes.
I do my own fact checking. I don't rely on any single source. 10 steps for vetting internet sources
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Facts are for the undecided
Of course there's in-built bias and a backfire effects when debaters meet. But in the end we only care how the audience votes.
And usually we have no idea why out tab list. We simply don't understand (well enough) the psychology of individuals and of groups. Keep in soft scienting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think the problem is more fundamental than this
Until there is uncertainty, you can't even have a discussion. All you have are arguments, which no one ever wins, and no one ever moves. Really, at this point, discussion is pointless, because everything is either "echo-chamber" reinforcement, or lies/distortions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Facts are for the undecided
And usually we have no idea why our team lost. We simply don't understand (well enough) the psychology of individuals and of groups. Keep on soft scienting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They found out, just without the help of Trump, and you need to find and download and update for your sarcasm software. Most people I know figure out what I mean by 'uncooperative team player'.
I already said I don't have a problem with them asking for source, but Trumps dickishness has nothing to do with the quality of the fact checking. So if you are okay with that, then you just told everyone that you care less about the facts and more about the emotions surrounding them, which means you cannot be trusted!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"fact checking isn't going to do much to change anyone's minds"
There is a professor studying this exact thing at Tel Aviv University. He has a theory that the way you change their minds is not to fact them to death but to one up them. You take their position and take it to the next level. I've actually tried this. While rolling a cross org program that was designed to be a "Trust but Verify" model. I received enormous amount of push back from my own org that we could not trust the folks to do what they were supposed to do. I did not argue, instead, I agreed and sited the example of another program that I was rolling to our own org that I thought should be in a "Trust but Verify" model (considering our cannon of ethics) but that we can't trust anyone, including ourselves. The cross org program rolled with the "Trust but Verify" model. (Oddly, the program inside our org did not.)
Second - I wonder, and I just started thinking about this, if maybe this is a case where we are not seeing the forest through the trees. I wonder if this is a reaction to the inability to really get fact based news from the main stream media outlets, with their lack of fact checking, doing a massive amount of "debate" with political analysts instead of just reporting news. It is just the next iteration since trying to get the major outlets to change is not going to happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I already said I don't have a problem with them asking for source,
Yeah, I'm not so sure you are, but go ahead...
but Trumps dickishness has nothing to do with the quality of the fact checking.
Well, yes it does - after all - it's his "fact" - you'd think if it's a "fact", it could be proven easily. If you leave it to someone else to prove your "easily-proven fact" (that turned out not to be so easily proven), then it's your own fault really.
So if you are okay with that, then you just told everyone that you care less about the facts and more about the emotions surrounding them, which means you cannot be trusted!
Wow. Pretty big stretch there.
All I did was say Bernie provided a source while Trump didn't. You seem to be more concerned with me pointing that out, than where Trump's "fact" came from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They found out, just without the help of Trump, and you need to find and download and update for your sarcasm software.
Per the article:
Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.
We rate his statement Mostly False.
They sure did.
And he could've helped clear it up, if he only had showed his work.
But it appears that may not have been in his best interest.
Again, not Politifact's fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I doubt it
The psychological effect of fights at the rallies is important for convincing people that it is "us versus them".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
Meanwhile Sanders was also an outsider to the democratic party. He never really had a chance at the convention because of party rules and Clinton did win in overall voter counts. That the party was disloyal to Sanders, might not have mattered anyway. While he did make some feel the Bern, the majority of democratic voters did not prefer him. Particularly in the south he lacked appeal. I think he was too slow at getting the ball rolling on his campaign more than the partys obstruction being the primary reason for him losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are, by proxy, making the claim that Trump was lying or baking shit because he did not care to provide the proof of his source, even though a source was discovered, and it is fine to score him lower for it.
This simply has no integrity, and you are showing the world your integrity is for political sale!
Stomp dancing in a circle. Neither Bernie or Trump providing the source is part of the problem here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fact checking itself is a biased business with a problematic history
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snopes is a liberal front.
Does Conservapedia count?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I doubt it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I doubt it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doubling down
Hillary played this "I can lie because you can't prove it and I can always disclaim it" poorly, because we the people saw it as a slap in the face. She lied using wording that, though seemingly precise, those words were very open to interpretation and ripe for disclaimer. Obama exercised this with the illegal mass surveillance. Bill Clinton did it when claiming he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky -- and he got away with it. Hillary learned from his lessons, making use of it regularly. Trump may have lied, but I don't think he was intentionally misleading. He doesn't think lineally. He thinks in circles expecting everyone to fill in the center.
Please, Mike, don't fall into the pit with everyone else trying to blame others for her loss. It was her fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good explanation...but...
Unfortunately, there is a much simpler explanation. Vast amounts of people are utterly stupid. No amount of proven facts will change the mind of many people because they cling to their views with rabid fervor. And the more politically hardline that someone is to one extreme or the other, the higher likelihood of cognitive dissonance. Facts don't matter, because their party is right, no matter what. And when they aren't, they throw blame and bias accusations and hope they will stick to something to take the attention off of their utter idiocy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm not going to rely on the only source in your post. I've checked the facts myself and I think Abraham Lincoln nailed it with these two quotes:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They've been hypmotised...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fact checking isn't the issue
A better column would be an analysis of why the mainstream media has lost the trust of the American people. (And no fair blaming it on stupid people, that's an elite cop out.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fact checking
Fact checking is essential, and unbiased uninterested, raw analysis of facts is key to the whole process. When you do something like politifact did, and you compare two identical statements from say, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, and Sanders gets a "mostly true" pass while Trump gets a "pants on fire," there's a clear bias with the fact checking.
Snopes has been problematic this cycle. There are tens of articles disputing the specific assertions they've made on a swath of different topics. I don't need to go into the details here. It doesn't help the argument.
My personal feeling is that there are going to be problems anytime a human being is involved. And that people generally suck at objectivity these days.
So why not have an AI work on this? You're not going to solve all of the problems by doing that, but you should be able to get it mostly right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Facts are for the undecided
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when it came time to write the articles, Bernie got a "True" rating, because his numbers matched those of a respectable research outlet. Trump got a "False" because no one has the time to look up the research as presented by EVERY researcher to see if there was a respectable one that supported his claims. Since it wasn't possible to verify Trump's numbers they had no recourse but to insinuate things about the combustibility of his pants. It's not about playing favorites, it's about ability to verify.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Embed them in a theory.
Try to measure the unknowns from the theory.
These steps are easy in common tasks (mass is preserved so you can put stuff on the scale), but most political facts are a bit note complicated (that's what makes them political)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too easily swayed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are, by proxy, making the claim that Trump was lying or baking shit because he did not care to provide the proof of his source, even though a source was discovered, and it is fine to score him lower for it.
Now you're saying there is a source?
Please - where is it? The article stated:
We can’t say with certainty, because Trump’s campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our question.
But you seem to think there's something else? I'd be completely interested in seeing where exactly you found support for this "fact."
You care more about how they found out than the fact that they did found out.
Well, I'd say it is quite important, don't you think?
For example, if I said that the typical Trump voter is, on average 40% less intelligent than the average Hillary voter, and said I found the fact somewhere on the Internet but refuse to tell you where - does that make my statement true, until proven false?
Think carefully before you answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161114/21315936043/trump-transition-website-has-some-cop yright-problems-both-copying-content-claiming-copyright.shtml#c176
Seems like Trump supporters like Politifact when it benefits them. Or should this number be called bullshit because of Politifact's lack of integrity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither Bernie or Trump providing the source is part of the problem here.
Well, it's not a problem for Bernie at all, as he provided his source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Snopes is a liberal front.
But you said "fact based"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the first case, you have reputable authorities utilizing integrated hosted services on a regular basis in order to reduce in-house IT workload to a tolerable level -- some very common service stacks (such as WordPress) don't lend themselves particularly well to self-hosting. (Much of the rest of the logic is still valid in this case, though, although one thing that site does *not* take into account is the distance, if you will, between the events described and the author of the site, which discounts primary sources based on a false belief that primary source material isn't found on the "shallow Web".)
In the second case, the logic they use misfires even more drastically, as the reverse IP lookup finds nothing but the subject website in that case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers
A good example is the New York Times. I don't think you can call them the newspaper of record anymore. They are somewhat better than the Comedy Channels "News" shows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
until they could do a better job researching from where Trump’s number may have come
Or, Trump could provide the source, as it's his claim.
He refused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: scolded for believing the "wrong" kind of thing
And from what I've read on propaganda, it would appear that the academic crowd is really far behind the curve on what and how propaganda works in the modern age.
Modern propagandist never says what they want the consumer to believe. They argue around their position, using base arguments to entrench the user into the idea.
Those base arguments are both affirmations of common beliefs falsely supported by the target fallacy, and rediculous assertions that the consumer will in their own mind refute, but also in a way that supports the target fallacy.
This creates a basis of of false belief that is extremely strong, which appears to the consumer to be self derived. The end result is not to get the consumer to consciously believe the target fallacy, but to develop a framework of dependent belief with the target fallacy as a keystone.
The propagandist can then control the consumer, not by affirmation, but by threatening the varacity of the target fallacy. (which the propagandist has never overtly communicated)
Because the consumer has MANY ideas linked to the target fallacy, they feel attacked, disconcerted and defensive. It is that defensive response that is vectored by the propagandist. In this fashion, the control mechanism is concealed from the consumer, and the executive capability of the propagandist remains dynamic.
They have in effect, created a component of identity that they can later leverage for ANY purpose they may wish. Which may be advertising, but may be any variety of things.
The fact is these guys really know what they are doing. And they are good at it. And it IS as sociopathic as it sounds. And they are aware of that.
What amazes me, is that this doesn't appear to be a documented thing. IMHO, understanding this attack vector in into the subconscious, is integral to understanding critical thinking in the modern age. It should be taught.
But all that there seems to be at the moment, is a few people starting to "get it". And perhaps a long chilled bottle of champagne, waiting for the day that enough of us "get it" that the power wielded, is reliably mitigated, by knowledge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I doubt it
If you'd followed the link in that line in the article, you would have seen the work that backs up that statement. Based on the research done, 38% of the right-leaning news articles shared on Facebook were mostly false or a mix of true and false information and 19% of the left-leaning articles shared on Facebook were mostly false or a mix of true and false information. Neither of these numbers is good but one is clearly worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fact checking
No, get into the details. I've seen lots of people saying "Snopes? Clearly biased liars." but not backing it up with any facts. Show your work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers
Then point out where they are factually incorrect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fact checking
So far, I have seen a sample size of one:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161113/00431436029/let-them-eat-facts-why-fact-checking-is- mostly-useless-convincing-voters.shtml#c313
But if you actually read the articles, Bernie quotes his sources, while Trump quotes his middle finger:
We can’t say with certainty, because Trump’s campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our question.
Sanders’ camp pointed us to research by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank. This data is different from the more familiar measurements for a few reasons.
One of the people responding didn't seem to think it was important to cite sources. I can only imagine if that person wrote an academic paper how that'd turn out...
And while we're talking about facts, it wasn't Bernie "mostly true" and Trump "pants on fire" in this particular example - it was Trump "mostly false:"
Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics.
We rate his statement Mostly False.
But wait! There's more!
In another thread, there's someone actually quoting the same website that they're bashing when it comes to this fact:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161114/21315936043/trump-transition-website-has-some-copyr ight-problems-both-copying-content-claiming-copyright.shtml#c176
So I'm not sure that you have a problem with sites per se, as opposed to a problem with hearing what you don't want to hear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Snopes is a liberal front.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I doubt it
Can we please stop doing that?
The Democrat party is led by neocons with Progressives in the back seat screaming till they get what they want.
The nearest America has to a left is Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. That's not a lot, and they don't have much power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's are other factors as well
Read this: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/06/fight-internet-fight-power-narrative/
NOW do you understand? We can't give self-appointed gate-keepers that kind of power. They'd abuse the crap out of it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So much wrong in this post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, 1000 times yes for this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We have an actual left in this country and I'm friendly with many left-wingers even though I disagree with them on pretty much everything.
So, RE: free speech, my lefty friends want to bully the dominant right-wing hate rags into diluting the bile and stop turning people against their $minority neighbours by defunding them. The defunding campaign is via persuading advertisers to pull ad campaigns or simply not renew them. Lego doesn't advertise in the Daily Fail any more. Specsavers has joined them and it's down to a campaign by Stop Funding Hate.
I disagree with this approach. In the tweet from Lego announcing their decision you'll see me tangling with the kind of individual who refers to restaurant serving staff as "a waitperson" over gendered toys. You can see right there in that thread that the slope gets all slippery and the gradient gets steep from the moment you give any group the power of gatekeeper RE: acceptable political views. The argument has gone from "Stop encouraging extremist hate freaks to fire-bomb refugees" to "stop selling Barbie dolls with makeup, etc."
So how did I persuade my friends that censorship is bad? I asked them if they honestly believed that the right would try to shut them up if they could.
They said yes.
"Well if you create the power of gatekeeper over what is or isn't an acceptable political view, how would you prevent it from being turned against you?"
They looked at each other.
"Well maybe we need to look at how to reach out to the least threatening of the people we disagree with and work out ways of winning them over instead of just calling them names and trying to shut them up."
They looked back at me and realised that's the thing that I do all the time with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doubling down
Trump, by contrast, is just an ignorant attention whore who makes promises he has no plan to keep. I learned that from his own damn website and subsequent pronouncements — I'm aware of the pro-Clinton bias in the press.
Please note, the press is run by Establishment figures who wanted to continue the status quo, which Hillary promised to do. That's not a left-wing thing, don't fall into the partisan pit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good explanation...but...
Think about it; you might fight like cat and dog with your siblings, etc., but they're family and you'll fight tooth and nail for them if it comes to that.
Some people get so invested in their corner of the culture wars that they'll fight and die for the party that at least sounds as though they're on their side.
Once you understand that, you have the key to them: just work out what they're all protective of and find some common ground. Work from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I doubt it
I suspect that there's considerably more "left" in the general population, who simply haven't been able to make any headway against the established right-wing interests already in power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They've been hypmotised...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I doubt it
That's a Progressive visibly jumping at the word "Socialist."
What left wing?!
I've seen some actual American leftists on Twitter (they're the ones advocating nationalisation of everything and free everything and jacking up taxes, etc.), but they're few and far between. And you'd be amazed at how much people on either side of the aisle actually have in common with each other. If only they realised this! It's usually down to individual aspects of the culture wars. Turns out they're not as split between Liberal/Progressive and the Right as you'd think. For example, there are Dems who love guns. Really. Check it out.
Imagine what'd happen if people just stopped fighting each other based on stereotypes and strawmen and actually talked to each other. It'd be amazing. Let's make that happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
wow, talk about not much to go on. 59 trump(mostly false) to 51sandersa(half true)sandersb(mostly true) african american youth unemployment(or real unimployment in one of sanders cases) isn't exactly the same statement to me. the context is also different and taken into account. but to each their own.
this was the best argument(although not great) i've read against snopes so far. was there another statement you were talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's are other factors as well
i frequently find that many people don't know what i expect everyone to know, and many of those things i was taught in school. the 3 things i didn't know i was able to learn vaguely about in minutes and could probably know much more within an hour.
i think willful ignorance such as only reading linking titles instead of reading the linking articles or sources to those articles is a bigger problem. i realize teaching critical thinking is proposed here as a solution, but i know i got that several times in schools. i don't know how many others did, and i don't know why it sticked for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I doubt it
(Well, you could argue that I'm not a Democrat; I'm not officially registered as one anymore, though I forget why not, and my philosophical position is probably closest to the Pirate Party, which doesn't appear to exist on a meaningful scale in the USA. I still tend to associate that way and vote that way in practice, however, at least until such time as ranked-preference voting eliminates the spoiler effect.)
One of my brothers once opined that what we want in a candidate is someone who's socially libertarian and economically welfare-state. That's not precisely socialist, but it's probably closer to socialist than to the candidates we actually tend to _have_ in modern memory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]