The Flaws in Political Fact Checking: A Critical Analysis

The role of political fact checkers on major news media sites and outlets has long been a topic of debate. These fact-checkers are often seen as pillars of truth and objectivity within the news industry. However, a closer examination reveals a concerning level of bias and superficiality that undermines their credibility.

Political Fact Checkers: Ignorant and Biased

Many would argue that political fact checkers are doing a good job, but the evidence suggests otherwise. They are, at best, ignorant and superficial, and at worst, tools for predetermined outcomes. These fact-checkers often support a left-leaning perspective, which can be seen in their biased selection and presentation of information.

Consider the institution of fact-checking, such as that by Norman Simenson. Trump has been relentless in his criticism of fact-checkers, suggesting that these entities are more interested in spinning narratives than in holding the truth.

Limited Evidence and Self-Odiousness

Political fact-checkers often struggle to provide substantial evidence to support their claims. For instance, factual claims such as the number of deaths from COVID-19 during different administrations are often oversimplified or distorted. Take the scenario where more people died under Biden due to the vaccine rollout compared to under Trump, who raced to develop the vaccine. Fact-checkers may present a laundry list of offenses against Trump without addressing the underlying facts.

Fact-checkers frequently engage in self-contradictory and arrogant arguments when faced with evident scientific truths. Their approach is not only unhelpful but also potentially harmful to public discourse. Instead of fostering a healthy debate, these fact-checkers often contribute to the erosion of respect for reality and truth.

Political Fact Checkers as Modern Censors

Political fact-checkers often act as modern censors, akin to low-level kagaba dwellers in earlier oppressive regimes. In this context, censorship on public social media platforms is often justified by radical left-wing media and establishments as a means to combat misinformation. However, such censorship is fundamentally wrong and destructive in a free democratic society.

The leftist establishment frequently claims the right to declare information as misinformation and suppress it. This behavior shows a clear bias and undermines the principles of free speech and public debate. While some may dislike certain views, this should not justify censorship.

Conclusion: A Need for Accountability and Transparency

Until a substantial cause not to believe in the reliability of political fact-checkers arises, it is essential to acknowledge the role they play in shaping public opinion. However, it is crucial to remain vigilant and hold these entities accountable for their biased and superficial approaches.

Political fact checkers should adhere to higher standards of objectivity and transparency. While they can play a valuable role in maintaining the integrity of the news media, their limitations and biases must be recognized and addressed.