Nearly 100 Percent of Political Contributions From Fact Checkers Go to Democrats

Just a guess, but I imagine that nearly 100% of political donations from anti-education, anti-science, and anti-truth folks go to pubs.

 

And we think the anti-truth people are all dems

east is east and west is west and ne’er the twain shall meet

 

For the liberal, the truth is whatever they want it be …… and it can change from day to day depending on what they want to achieve.

 

Remind us who invented "alternative facts".. oh yeah ... Cons. And with that we go from an off the cuff opinion to a provable fact. Thanks for playing though.

 

Makes sense. People who are concerned with the factual truth certainly aren't going to support Republicans.

 

Derp derp flush.

 

Dear Lord. Look at your source. NPR - what a joke

 

It was a direct quote that he gave on TV...do you want to see the words coming out of his mouth?

 

Apparently, mentioning cognitive dissonance is a "veiled insult" now? How very meta...

 

I just hope that at some point in the future, however remote it may seem, the MAGA cult which has been encouraged to believe lies and dwell in an alternate mental reality, can find the capacity to come back and join the rest of us. Facts do matter.

I'll give you a start on it right here; things that someone actually says aren't, well, untrue, just because you choose to dislike the source. This seems pretty rudimentary, actually. (Not that NPR is a particularly biased source in the first place.)

Maybe we should look at this as a "half-full glass" situation, where at least the poster didn't do what some other MAGAs here do, and just type "FAKE NEWS!" while doing their proverbial drive-by.

 

So you are using a fact checking website that you take on faith but when the Free Beacon cites political donations from fact checkers, you question them based on fact checkers? I’m sure you see the circular logic trap there.

I’m fine if you want to point out where the Free Beacon story fell short or misled on their article based on off you checking their work on publicly available info and seeing something different. But trying to use a fact checking website that uses the phrase “loaded” phrases in their stories is hard to take seriously when the phrase “Republican pounce/seize” is used by mainstream outlets all the time and they do not get the same ratings.

The fact is the there is a conservative ecosystem of outlets like the Free Beacon that range from good to crap, just like there is the same on the left. The difference is that the mainstream outlets that are supposed to be more middle of the road, all lean left and will often cater to the stories on the left ecosystem. The WSJ being the exception that does the same for the right. The fact checkers often reside at these left leaning mainstream outlets and will use sources like Media Matters, a far left wing site, as their source for their fact checkers.

 

Perhaps the Beacon article failed in large part because it did nothing in regards to establishing any positive correlation between Democrat donations and any evidence of siad donations manifesting in actual incorrect fact checking. In other words it was simply a clickbait piece for ill-informed righties with zero substance.

 

Open minds folks. Everyone in this forum just agrees with everyone else. I have never learned anything from someone who agrees with me. Challenge your minds and thoughts. Read sources that disagree with you. I find NPR to be one of the most one sided sources. I still read CNN and msnbc for research. One of my greatest fighting buddies and drinking buddies is a polar opposite of mine. I learn from him and he learns from me. FREE discussion of ideas is what is so needed.

 

So you see zero correlation between who people and organizations give political donations to and culture and thought processes with those people and organizations?

 

Not enough people do this, myself included. Great post.

 

As I mentioned before, I’m not familiar with the data, but I’m not going to blindly rely on a far-right (or far-left) website that offers confirmation bias attacking fact-checkers that calls out the site doing the “analysis”. Which is also coincidentally exactly what their audience want the results to show.

Look at Fox News—they promoted baseless claims about Dominion Voting Systems. Because THAT is what their audience wanted to hear - attacking the referee. How did that work out for them?

But this is all a bigger concern: how MAGA consistently opposes independent analysis and actual facts. Whether it’s the press, scientific evidence, the CDC, history books, judges, courts, election officials, election machines, elections, school teachers, higher education, or even military leaders who uphold the Constitution over party loyalty-expect more of that. But the pattern is clear. They even went after NOAA when Trump was caught in a lie.

Expect more attacks on independent institutions in his second term.

 

Give altruism a try. There are numerous jobs, fact-checking included, where it is entirely possible to do the job without one's personal preferences overriding the results. Beacon provided nothing that would dispute that, it was clickbait to those who cannot fathom altruistic behavior.

 

So did you have any thoughts on the US Vice President-elect admitting to knowingly telling outright lies?

 

What the Beacon showed was if you are a "Fact Checker", it is probably not in your best professional interests to make political donations to political candidates or parties you are going to have to cover.

If we are going to give altruism a try, I'm sure you would be fine with allowing ACC refs back in the Swamp next year.

 

So you are unfamiliar with the data and chose to remain so rather than click on a website that did an analysis of the data and try and see if you could easily determine if their analysis was off. Which you probably would be able to do if you think they are so far right and therefore their argument would be weak. Instead you attack the source rather than point out how they are wrong.

This is pretty common among folks on the Left that do not understand the right and do not know who is who on that side.