"Fact checking" may have been founded on the premise of spreading truth, but in today's world, "fact checkers" serve only to spread propaganda. In addition to left-leaning "fact checker" sites, we now have "fact checkers" surveying social media to stamp out dissent and "fact checker" applications for mobile devices and web browsers to label and censor "unapproved" content.
While "fact checking" was once a valuable asset for discerning truth, it is now nothing more than a tool of oppression. The Left has gone so far to corrupt "fact checking" that the real meaning of "truth" in and of itself may also soon be forgotten.
Fact checking farce
Writing for the New York Post, David Harsanyi notes that the "impartial" fact-checkers of the Left "engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship," especially when it comes to President Trump. This became evident in the wake of the State of the Union Address.
As Harsanyi reports, fact checkers have been trying to make it look like Trump lies to the public about everything.
For example, Politico gave Trump a "partly true" rating for stating that one in three women are sexually assaulted on their journey to cross the southern border and in to the U.S.
The fact-checking site argued Trump's statements weren't accurate because "a 2017 report by Doctors Without Borders” found that only 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been actually abused while traveling through Mexico."
Trump is being attacked for saying that one-third of women are assaulted, rather than citing the exact percentage.
"It is almost surely the case that every past president and every politician has used “one-third” or “one-half” rather than a specific fraction, and walked away without being fact-checked," Harsanyi states.
The insinuation that Trump lied to the public because he said "one in three" instead of "31 percent" is as petty as you can get.
Gatekeeping of truth promotes lies
The New York Times also "fact checked" Trump's claim that illegal border crossing is an "urgent national crisis." The Times says that even though Border Patrol is arresting 50,000 people a month, the number of border crossings is down, so it is no longer a problem.
As Harsanyi argues, you cannot fact-check urgency.
We’ve seen a steep decline in gun violence over the past 30 years. Would the New York Times ever “fact-check” a Democrat who argued that gun violence was an “urgent crisis” of public safety? Of course not. But this fluctuating standard allows journalists to “fact-check” any subjective political contention they desire.
And here is where things get ugly: Fact checkers are no longer just checking facts, they are actively trying to use their perceived authority as "fact checkers" to undermine differences in political views. This is thought suppression.
If a Republican says, "Illegal immigration is a problem," a fact checker can simply come along and say "No, it's not," end of story.
But there is nothing that gives "fact checkers" any more authority to decide the "truth" on a given issue than any other person. And as people, fact checkers are not immune to bias. Bias becomes very clear when you stop fact-checking facts and start fact-checking opinions, for the sole purpose of trying to discredit people or ideas you don't support. In the case of illegal immigration, there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that it is a problem -- but a fact-checker can simply ignore that evidence and present their opinion on the issue as incontrovertible truth.
The fact-checkers of today don't care about truth -- they care about pushing an agenda. You can learn more about thought suppression at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
