1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.TV

  • [OT] Fact checkers lie!

    From Rhino@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 5 15:32:54 2024
    I just stumbled across this article in my news feed which, by default,
    contains a few facts that have been fact-checked. It states the
    proposition that Joe Rogan has endorsed Trump and follows it with a
    fact-check that says No, Rogan has NOT endorsed Trump:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/04/joe-rogan-vote-trump-fact-check/76002593007/

    This caught my eye because only moments before seeing that, I'd seen a
    video of an interview with Newt Gingrich in which he said Rogan HAD
    endorsed Trump!

    If even the self-proclaimed fact-checkers get things wrong, what the
    blazing heck is the point of reading articles by fact-checkers?

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rhino@21:1/5 to Rhino on Tue Nov 5 15:37:56 2024
    On 2024-11-05 3:32 PM, Rhino wrote:
    I just stumbled across this article in my news feed which, by default, contains a few facts that have been fact-checked. It states the
    proposition that Joe Rogan has endorsed Trump and follows it with a fact-check that says No, Rogan has NOT endorsed Trump:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/04/joe-rogan- vote-trump-fact-check/76002593007/

    This caught my eye because only moments before seeing that, I'd seen a
    video of an interview with Newt Gingrich in which he said Rogan HAD
    endorsed Trump!

    If even the self-proclaimed fact-checkers get things wrong, what the
    blazing heck is the point of reading articles by fact-checkers?

    I take that rant back. :-)

    I hadn't actually read the fact-checker article before posting the link
    and now that I have, I see that they corrected themselves at the top of
    the article and acknowledge that Rogan HAS endorsed Trump.

    Apparently, Rogan made then endorsement AFTER the original article
    saying that he hadn't endorsed Trump was published, meaning they were
    accurate at the time and had the grace to correct themselves when the
    situation changed, which is exactly what they should do.

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From anim8rfsk@21:1/5 to Rhino on Tue Nov 5 19:36:14 2024
    Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
    On 2024-11-05 3:32 PM, Rhino wrote:
    I just stumbled across this article in my news feed which, by default,
    contains a few facts that have been fact-checked. It states the
    proposition that Joe Rogan has endorsed Trump and follows it with a
    fact-check that says No, Rogan has NOT endorsed Trump:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/04/joe-rogan-
    vote-trump-fact-check/76002593007/

    This caught my eye because only moments before seeing that, I'd seen a
    video of an interview with Newt Gingrich in which he said Rogan HAD
    endorsed Trump!

    If even the self-proclaimed fact-checkers get things wrong, what the
    blazing heck is the point of reading articles by fact-checkers?

    I take that rant back. :-)

    I hadn't actually read the fact-checker article before posting the link
    and now that I have, I see that they corrected themselves at the top of
    the article and acknowledge that Rogan HAS endorsed Trump.

    Apparently, Rogan made then endorsement AFTER the original article
    saying that he hadn't endorsed Trump was published, meaning they were accurate at the time and had the grace to correct themselves when the situation changed, which is exactly what they should do.


    Facebook fact, checkers are routinely and obviously wrong but I have no
    idea if they are specific to Facebook or coming from somewhere else and Facebook just passes their lies on.

    --
    The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rhino@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 5 23:36:22 2024
    On 2024-11-05 9:36 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
    Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
    On 2024-11-05 3:32 PM, Rhino wrote:
    I just stumbled across this article in my news feed which, by default,
    contains a few facts that have been fact-checked. It states the
    proposition that Joe Rogan has endorsed Trump and follows it with a
    fact-check that says No, Rogan has NOT endorsed Trump:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/04/joe-rogan-
    vote-trump-fact-check/76002593007/

    This caught my eye because only moments before seeing that, I'd seen a
    video of an interview with Newt Gingrich in which he said Rogan HAD
    endorsed Trump!

    If even the self-proclaimed fact-checkers get things wrong, what the
    blazing heck is the point of reading articles by fact-checkers?

    I take that rant back. :-)

    I hadn't actually read the fact-checker article before posting the link
    and now that I have, I see that they corrected themselves at the top of
    the article and acknowledge that Rogan HAS endorsed Trump.

    Apparently, Rogan made then endorsement AFTER the original article
    saying that he hadn't endorsed Trump was published, meaning they were
    accurate at the time and had the grace to correct themselves when the
    situation changed, which is exactly what they should do.


    Facebook fact, checkers are routinely and obviously wrong but I have no
    idea if they are specific to Facebook or coming from somewhere else and Facebook just passes their lies on.

    For sure. I did NOT mean to imply that I'm satisfied that all fact
    checkers are accurate, just that this particular one behaved ethically.

    --
    Rhino

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From moviePig@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 6 11:07:44 2024
    On 11/5/2024 9:36 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
    Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
    On 2024-11-05 3:32 PM, Rhino wrote:
    I just stumbled across this article in my news feed which, by default,
    contains a few facts that have been fact-checked. It states the
    proposition that Joe Rogan has endorsed Trump and follows it with a
    fact-check that says No, Rogan has NOT endorsed Trump:

    https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/11/04/joe-rogan-
    vote-trump-fact-check/76002593007/

    This caught my eye because only moments before seeing that, I'd seen a
    video of an interview with Newt Gingrich in which he said Rogan HAD
    endorsed Trump!

    If even the self-proclaimed fact-checkers get things wrong, what the
    blazing heck is the point of reading articles by fact-checkers?

    I take that rant back. :-)

    I hadn't actually read the fact-checker article before posting the link
    and now that I have, I see that they corrected themselves at the top of
    the article and acknowledge that Rogan HAS endorsed Trump.

    Apparently, Rogan made then endorsement AFTER the original article
    saying that he hadn't endorsed Trump was published, meaning they were
    accurate at the time and had the grace to correct themselves when the
    situation changed, which is exactly what they should do.


    Facebook fact, checkers are routinely and obviously wrong but I have no
    idea if they are specific to Facebook or coming from somewhere else and Facebook just passes their lies on.

    Mostly trust fact-checkers who have something to lose.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to Rhino on Thu Nov 7 04:30:44 2024
    On 2024-11-05 3:32 PM, Rhino wrote:

    I hadn't actually read the fact-checker article before posting the link
    and now that I have, I see that they corrected themselves at the top of
    the article and acknowledge that Rogan HAS endorsed Trump.

    Apparently, Rogan made then endorsement AFTER the original article
    saying that he hadn't endorsed Trump was published, meaning they were >accurate at the time and had the grace to correct themselves when the >situation changed, which is exactly what they should do.

    They should have removed the article completely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)