May 28, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by Gurwinder
Fact-checking is a developing science and it's unsurprising that fact-checkers have their own biases. However, it's also an extention of the burgeoning field of science communication. A journalist aware of the role and impact of biases is still leagues ahead of a "do-my-own-researcher" who thinks he's being objective and unbiased.
We shouldn't confuse the wonkiness of mass fact-checks such as on social media with the integrity of people and systems that are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff using formalised tools. That's after all how science developed - an earnest attempt at introducing professionalism, rigour and reproducibility into what would otherwise be endeavours by enthusiasts operating in isolation.
I had brought up this point in a previous article of yours, which I'd like reiterate in further detail. What muddies the water further is that these things have fallen into the fray of the culture wars, a chaotic phenomenon that has no place for rationality, good sense and query. Articles and fact-checkers are little more than rhetorical arms for the hardcore culture warriors on social media. The side that has legacy media, fact-checkers, academics, and even celebs, filmmakers, game developers, and influencers disseminating their viewpoints, has the superior arms and artillery. Even the most dishonest leftie can make any conservative look like a buffoon, with no regard to the truth (not a weapon). So now the masses too have a skin in this game, they just want to win against their dissidents, so they're ready to cede more latitude to the liberal establishment. There was a National Review article I'd read a few days ago, which argued that wokeness is not a product of value on its own. So it needs to attach itself to voguish IP's like Star Wars and LOTR, and even game franchises like Assassin's Creed, products that are not so easily replaceable due to their intrinsic historical and cultural value, and use them as platforms to propagandise. We could add all our cultural institutions into the mix too. Try this for size. If you don't like the Sequel Trilogy, can you make your own Star Wars that you've been watching for 4 decades? If you think Ivy League runs against your values, can you build your own, with the oldest institution that also has 4 centuries of prestige and endowment? This applied to Twitter too, until recently, and the prospect of losing even a single platform to the dissidents rippled into half a dozen meltdowns echoing across the internet. And the first victim of any war, be it literal or figurative, is the truth.
Well Gurwinder - everything is actually based on interpretation & perspective which are personalized. Even your article which is a stab at truth has a tilt - I wonder if its simply my perspective or yours ;-). A truly objective appraisal on any issue is extremely rare. Our supposed objectivity is in the realm of fiction and it only reinforces our blind spot and our feelings of superiority - Hey I am so objective compared to those morons. Like Anais Nin said, "We don't see things as they are, We see them as we are" or in a more lighthearted vein when on the road, "Everyone going faster than me is a maniac & Everyone going slower than me is a moron".....
Whilst fact-checking an individual 'fact' is prone to biases I don't believe that's its main purpose.. It's purpose is also to place the fact into its given context such that someone insisting that formula at the border is not factual is not what is being refuted. Rather it is that it is being sent to the detriment of others is. The inference given by this article to dismiss all fact-checking is also unhealthy insofar as it then leaves the individual with lack of serious reasoning ability to the whims of whatever they are exposed to and that seems exceedingly counter-productive. Better to say that all Fact-checking, like all facts, ought to be read with a critical eye.
"...the integrity of people and systems that are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff using formalized tools."
Those formalized tools and systems can be misused, or applied wrongly in select situation due to implicit bias. Also the knowledge and competence of the fact checker in applying the right "formalized tools" is also to be noted.
A journalist aware of the role and impact of biases is not necessarily above bias and awareness does not indicates absence of bias. Journalists and media also need approval of audience they cater which brings them revenue, their bread and butter.
The role of the media was reporting truth, but there emerged two sides with their own truths and hence the news industry became the fake-news industry. Now the need for fact-checkers. The current crop of fact-checkers are fraught with left-wing bias, so the right will come up with their own set of trusted fact-checkers. The same vicious cycle!
Truth is elusive more than ever.
Since 2015, I have come to view journalists as scum. Fact-checkers are the new and higher class of the same. It is imperative to insult these professions out of existence. Any institution claiming authority over what is true in this age is, in essence, trying to act as the ministry of truth. It IS about power.
If one wants the truth, the only way is to have a mind that is open and aware of its own biases, and find and follow people with long-term track record of being mostly right and coherent. It's an intellectually demanding task. Truth is not for the lazy.
fact checking is treating the symptoms. what is the underlying malady? corporate interests. by making elections free of such corporate influence, we can do away from much of fact checking needs.
Fact-checking is a developing science and it's unsurprising that fact-checkers have their own biases. However, it's also an extention of the burgeoning field of science communication. A journalist aware of the role and impact of biases is still leagues ahead of a "do-my-own-researcher" who thinks he's being objective and unbiased.
We shouldn't confuse the wonkiness of mass fact-checks such as on social media with the integrity of people and systems that are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff using formalised tools. That's after all how science developed - an earnest attempt at introducing professionalism, rigour and reproducibility into what would otherwise be endeavours by enthusiasts operating in isolation.
I had brought up this point in a previous article of yours, which I'd like reiterate in further detail. What muddies the water further is that these things have fallen into the fray of the culture wars, a chaotic phenomenon that has no place for rationality, good sense and query. Articles and fact-checkers are little more than rhetorical arms for the hardcore culture warriors on social media. The side that has legacy media, fact-checkers, academics, and even celebs, filmmakers, game developers, and influencers disseminating their viewpoints, has the superior arms and artillery. Even the most dishonest leftie can make any conservative look like a buffoon, with no regard to the truth (not a weapon). So now the masses too have a skin in this game, they just want to win against their dissidents, so they're ready to cede more latitude to the liberal establishment. There was a National Review article I'd read a few days ago, which argued that wokeness is not a product of value on its own. So it needs to attach itself to voguish IP's like Star Wars and LOTR, and even game franchises like Assassin's Creed, products that are not so easily replaceable due to their intrinsic historical and cultural value, and use them as platforms to propagandise. We could add all our cultural institutions into the mix too. Try this for size. If you don't like the Sequel Trilogy, can you make your own Star Wars that you've been watching for 4 decades? If you think Ivy League runs against your values, can you build your own, with the oldest institution that also has 4 centuries of prestige and endowment? This applied to Twitter too, until recently, and the prospect of losing even a single platform to the dissidents rippled into half a dozen meltdowns echoing across the internet. And the first victim of any war, be it literal or figurative, is the truth.
Well Gurwinder - everything is actually based on interpretation & perspective which are personalized. Even your article which is a stab at truth has a tilt - I wonder if its simply my perspective or yours ;-). A truly objective appraisal on any issue is extremely rare. Our supposed objectivity is in the realm of fiction and it only reinforces our blind spot and our feelings of superiority - Hey I am so objective compared to those morons. Like Anais Nin said, "We don't see things as they are, We see them as we are" or in a more lighthearted vein when on the road, "Everyone going faster than me is a maniac & Everyone going slower than me is a moron".....
« So if you're going to fact-check others, it's worth nothing unless you’re also prepared to fact-check yourself »
Best conclusion ever
Whilst fact-checking an individual 'fact' is prone to biases I don't believe that's its main purpose.. It's purpose is also to place the fact into its given context such that someone insisting that formula at the border is not factual is not what is being refuted. Rather it is that it is being sent to the detriment of others is. The inference given by this article to dismiss all fact-checking is also unhealthy insofar as it then leaves the individual with lack of serious reasoning ability to the whims of whatever they are exposed to and that seems exceedingly counter-productive. Better to say that all Fact-checking, like all facts, ought to be read with a critical eye.
The ultimate fact check is "know them by their fruits". What are the fruits of the current administration vs Trumps's?
"...the integrity of people and systems that are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff using formalized tools."
Those formalized tools and systems can be misused, or applied wrongly in select situation due to implicit bias. Also the knowledge and competence of the fact checker in applying the right "formalized tools" is also to be noted.
A journalist aware of the role and impact of biases is not necessarily above bias and awareness does not indicates absence of bias. Journalists and media also need approval of audience they cater which brings them revenue, their bread and butter.
The role of the media was reporting truth, but there emerged two sides with their own truths and hence the news industry became the fake-news industry. Now the need for fact-checkers. The current crop of fact-checkers are fraught with left-wing bias, so the right will come up with their own set of trusted fact-checkers. The same vicious cycle!
Truth is elusive more than ever.
Since 2015, I have come to view journalists as scum. Fact-checkers are the new and higher class of the same. It is imperative to insult these professions out of existence. Any institution claiming authority over what is true in this age is, in essence, trying to act as the ministry of truth. It IS about power.
If one wants the truth, the only way is to have a mind that is open and aware of its own biases, and find and follow people with long-term track record of being mostly right and coherent. It's an intellectually demanding task. Truth is not for the lazy.
fact checking is treating the symptoms. what is the underlying malady? corporate interests. by making elections free of such corporate influence, we can do away from much of fact checking needs.