OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

Ah, OK.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Hang on...what?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I concede that I looked at this and could not make head nor tail of it.


BTW: Take it with a grain of salt.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

Overall, we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.

Who fact checks mediabiasfactcheck.com?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

the presumption that there can be no doubt about the validity of fact-checkers’ conclusions, as implied by CNN’s Facts First feature: “CNN holds elected officials and candidates accountable by pointing out what’s true and what’s not,” as if determining the truth is somehow a psychologically straightforward process.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

BTW: Take it with a grain of salt.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

Overall, we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.

But how have Snopes and Media Bias Fact Check (both of whom are totally legitimate and heaps qualified) rate CulturalHusbandry, who has nothing to do with Zero Hedge and who put the data up on their own Twitter page?

 

[Gronk]

Who fact checks mediabiasfactcheck.com?

mediabias etc places websites in broad categories based on their observations over an extended period of time. If you have evidence that their ratings are erroneous, then here's your chance.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/

mediabiasetc give the reader a benchmark to move forward. Their ratings assess reputation and likelihood of misleading articles or potential falsehoods

But how have Snopes and Media Bias Fact Check (both of whom are totally legitimate and heaps qualified) rate CulturalHusbandry, who has nothing to do with Zero Hedge and who put the data up on their own Twitter page?

mediabiasetc are not there to fact check every article. Zero Hedge may very well post facts every now and then however it is more than likely that they post "alternative facts".

 

[Gronk]

Oh dear. He doesn’t get it, does he ?

 

[Gronk]

Transition governments are for pussies.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Who fact checks mediabiasfactcheck.com?

Mediabiasfactcheckfactcheck.com

 

[Joshuatheeel]

 

[Poupou Escobar]

mediabias etc places websites in broad categories based on their observations over an extended period of time. If you have evidence that their ratings are erroneous, then here's your chance.
mediabiasetc give the reader a benchmark to move forward. Their ratings assess reputation and likelihood of misleading articles or potential falsehoods
mediabiasetc are not there to fact check every article. Zero Hedge may very well post facts every now and then however it is more than likely that they post "alternative facts".

But how do they verify the facts? Why do they trust those sources?

 

[Gronk]

But how do they verify the facts? Why do they trust those sources?

Well we all know what Confucius said ...

Spoiler

Man who fishes in other man's toilet, catches nothing but boneless brown trout.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Or maybe not.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

 

[Gronk]

Meanwhile, US Government is actively swatting down election BS.

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol#post

Reality: Voter registration list maintenance and other election integrity measures protect against voting illegally on behalf of deceased individuals.

Rumor: Votes are being cast on behalf of dead people and these votes are being counted.

Reality: Variations in vote totals for different contests on the same ballot occur in every election and do not by themselves indicate fraud or issues with voting technology.

Rumor: More votes in one contest than other contests on the ballot means that results cannot be trusted.

 

[Gronk]

Reality: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) do not design or audit ballots, which are processes managed by state and local election officials.

Rumor: DHS or CISA printed paper ballots with security measures and is auditing results as a countermeasure against ballot counterfeiting.

Reality: Robust safeguards including canvassing and auditing procedures help ensure the accuracy of official election results.

Rumor: A bad actor could change election results without detection.

 

[Gronk]

Reality: Election results reporting may occur more slowly than prior years. This does not indicate there is any problem with the counting process or results. Official results are not certified until all validly cast ballots have been counted, including ballots that are counted after election night.

Rumor: If results as reported on election night change over the ensuing days or weeks, the process is hacked or compromised, so I can’t trust the results.

Reality: In some circumstances, elections officials are permitted to “duplicate” or otherwise further mark cast ballots to ensure they can be properly counted.

Rumor: Witnessing election officials marking ballots means that fraudulent voting is taking place.

 

[Gronk]

Reality: Election night results are not official results.

Rumor: If election night reporting sites experience an outage, vote counts will be lost or manipulated.

Reality: A defaced or manipulated election night reporting webpage would not impact counting and certification of official results.

Rumor: If the election night reporting webpage is defaced or displays incorrect results, the integrity of the election is compromised.

 

[Gronk]

Or maybe not.

It's getting messy

 

[Gronk]

Tony Windsor throwing hand grenades.