Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again

[Tanngrisnir]

How is it lying when you keep doing it Tanngrisnir?

You've been given more than a few chances now to actually prove something, yet you only bluster and flee as usual.

Though I'm glad to see that you've decided to still stick to formula, as usual.

I'm right here. That you have to pretend that's 'running away' just further demonstrates that my observations about you are correct.

I happy to accept your admission that you've lied and have nothing but empty blathering and grandstanding.

Meh. 'twas ever thus.

 

[Vadinho]

The right wing has now created an argument that goes like this:

Facts are proven true only if the person claiming a fact is true is a fellow conservative of just the right persuasion.
Facts are considered false if the person claiming it is a fact is not a fellow conservative.
The only way a fact can be accepted if claimed so by anyone other then a fellow conservative is if that fact is also supported by a fellow conservative.
All statements of fact are dependent upon the political leanings of the person stating that fact.

 

[Oborosen]

I'm right here. That you have to pretend that's 'running away' just further demonstrates that my observations about you are correct.

I happy to accept your admission that you've lied and have nothing but empty blathering and grandstanding.

Meh. 'twas ever thus.

Once again, you're given another chance and you run again.

I'm done with you now.

 

[Conaeolos]

So let's see, the arguments against being concerned that the so called fact-checkers at the WP might be letting their self-proclaimed label go to their head is...

- The author did explain himself
- 30% of the country is just in a cult
- Washington post is generally considered a factual information source where as conflicting sources like NewsMax are mixed
- OP is just lying to protect Trump
- Didn't even trump call republicans stupid? [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/]
- All manners of insults to people's intelligence, character and gullibility
- Taking a watchmen reference literally

All to defend an article\writer that makes statements like this:

This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.[who never given false information? "*cough*" Iraq *cough*)]

Such statement(s) are opinion not objective fact as they are written in way to manipulate the reader.

Let me rewrite it as objective:
:: We maintain this to be false, due to U.S. intelligence reports which confidently assess there was hacking by Russian entities on the Democrats.

Do you notice the difference?

People face it, your media wants to filter what is truth instead of accept we all must work toward it. It thus creates narratives to prevent you from questioning them. It doesn't mean they are factually wrong, but for heaven sakes have some scepticism.

Labeling people liars, giving bottomless pinocchios is only being done to try and coerce you to their agenda.

Fact-checking is a real thing. These are not examples of fact-checking. To do so one needs to look for opinions or statement of fact that are either out of context or misleading or false. The conclusion of which needs to attempt to state motives above teh standard of "I don't agree so they are trying to deceive people".

Example:

Lying: Trump says "I did not make a payment to Stormy Daniels" when he in fact did and you provide the evidence.

That is different from a mislead like: "the United States pays for most of the cost of NATO"

Fact checking, one could say this statement is misleading, because
- NATO members spend money on their own defense so the funds allies send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending.
- the 2% goal is a guildline
- the U.S. is one most populous nations in the alliance
- etc etc

So although US military spending is 70% of the total military spending of the alliance[https://www.statista.com/statistics/263127/military-spending-of-the-nato-countries-1990-2011/], that is not the NATO budget and it misleading to say allies do not pay their fair share or owe more for not meeting the guidelines.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Once again, you're given another chance and you run again.

I'm done with you now.

I'm happy to accept your 2nd admission that you've lied and nothing but blathering and grandstanding.

Like always.

You are dismissed.

 

[Taylor]

Who believes the statements of known liars?

Agree. Why people believe what self-described "fact checkers" have to say despite a history of making false claims is beyond me.

 

[Thoreau72]

Agree. Why people believe what self-described "fact checkers" have to say despite a history of making false claims is beyond me.

Why people believe the "fact checkers" that are the mainstream media is equally irrational, yet half the country or more believes whatever Lester Holt or Scott Pelley say. Go figure. They've been shown to be horribly wrong over many years, yet we are supposed to accept what they say as gospel.

When everything the American people believe is false, some of us will know why, even as others will remain clueless.

 

[ModerationNow!]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

Too bad they didn't have the "bottomless Pinocchio" during the Obama and Clinton years. How many times were 330,000,000 Americans promised they could keep their health insurance company, or their doctor, or their plan? How many times were they told the new plans would save their families money? How many times did Hillary claim she sent NO top secret emails, or claim she only had 1 personal smartphone/tablet device(she had 14+), and how many times did they ALL lie about Ben Ghazi? How many times did Obama claim that the increased govt spending had nothing to do with his policies? How many times did Hillary AND Bill lie about his affair with Lewinsky? How many times did they lie about all the other women, who accused him of affairs and/or sexual assault? I could go on.

Wait, wait wait..... We ARE talking about "fact checking" entities controlled by proven biased leftists and people with connections to democrats, who tend to omit almost all instances where democrats lie. Its easy to make one side seem like saints, if you just DONT fact check their lies, or you come up with a lie grading system, that makes one lie look less lie-ey than another!

 

[bubbabgone]

Too bad they didn't have the "bottomless Pinocchio" during the Obama and Clinton years. How many times were 330,000,000 Americans promised they could keep their health insurance company, or their doctor, or their plan? How many times were they told the new plans would save their families money? How many times did Hillary claim she sent NO top secret emails, or claim she only had 1 personal smartphone/tablet device(she had 14+), and how many times did they ALL lie about Ben Ghazi? How many times did Obama claim that the increased govt spending had nothing to do with his policies? How many times did Hillary AND Bill lie about his affair with Lewinsky? How many times did they lie about all the other women, who accused him of affairs and/or sexual assault? I could go on.

Wait, wait wait..... We ARE talking about "fact checking" entities controlled by proven biased leftists and people with connections to democrats, who tend to omit almost all instances where democrats lie. Its easy to make one side seem like saints, if you just DONT fact check their lies, or you come up with a lie grading system, that makes one lie look less lie-ey than another!

I've found fact-checkers like Kessler get the results they want by reformulating what they're evaluating so they can call it false.
Another thing they do is declare it to be "false or misleading". Saying "misleading" allows for their opinion to be decisive.
They also tend to leave out details in their evaluation. Kessler's decision that there was no Russian collusion with Hillary or the DNC is a good example.
As noted in #1 he declared ...

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)​

"largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)" is obviously nonsense.