Fact checking

[Miss Shelby]

How is it done? What sites? And how do you know they're not biased?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

How is it done? What sites? And how do you know they're not biased?

It's best to do the fact checking on your own since there's no such thing as an unbiased fact checker.

 

[777Sloan]

.

 

[tulc]

I suggest avoiding Politifact and Snopes. Both are known for leftist bias.

...and for proving Mr Trump and the Republican Party are wrong pretty much all the time.
tulc(knows how frustrating it is when facts get in the way)

 

[DaisyDay]

How is it done? Generally by checking original sources. If it is a news account, multiple independent sources (not multiples of the same source) verifying the same facts is a pretty reliable indication that something is true. Unedited video - yes, such a thing does exist - or transcripts of speeches. Sometimes it is done by tracking down the origin of a rumor or internet meme. Sometimes an assertion cannot be verified and sometimes it contradicts known facts.

Snopes and Politifact are fairly reliable because they cite their sources and give their reasoning. Any site that fails to do either is suspect.

How do you know they're not biased? Unless it's extreme, bias counts for less than accuracy.

 

[Hank77]

How is it done? What sites? And how do you know they're not biased?

When they produce evidence such as documents, official videos of speeches, things they have written, interviews they gave, etc. is the only time I feel like I can trust what any of them say.
So even if someone is biased, if they have actual evidence that supports their statements, it doesn't matter what their biases are, does it?

 

[MorkandMindy]

I suggest avoiding Politifact and Snopes. Both are known for leftist bias.

I'm way further to the left than most people and if there's one thing I hate it's a lying murdering candidate who destroys complete countries.

She has power over the lives of those in Snopes and Politifact so don't expect the truth from them, even the FBI won't take her on.

Who will? Just people too old to be threatened. With Bernie it wasn't him threatened but his wife.

 

[MorkandMindy]

When they produce evidence such as documents, official videos of speeches, things they have written, interviews they gave, etc. is the only time I feel like I can trust what any of them say.
So even if someone is biased, if they have actual evidence that supports their statements, it doesn't matter what their biases are, does it?

You don't have to do that, use the big things that are well known and can't be denied.

Example When Hillary advocated bombing etc. Iraq, the war in Afghanistan had already been going on <how long> and the promised rebuilding of Afghanistan had not yet gotten much of anywhere. The initial claim was we were going to rebuild Afghanistan, oh, and maybe we would have to do a little bombing and fighting first, but even in the peaceful areas we have forgotten to do the rebuilding.

Example And after the war in Iraq had been going on for 8 years and there were 'regrets' they claimed about having destroyed all the state security services, then Hillary did guess what

Destroyed the state security services in Libya having forgotten what was going on in Iraq as a result of the same action.

The Washington Post gives her a clear pass, claiming that she had killed a lot of the right people, failing to notice that this was part of the problem, and doing the usual

claiming she isn't evil but just amazingly stupid.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Even when the public has the right information staring them in the face they just ignore it.

 

[Hank77]

Who will? Just people too old to be threatened. With Bernie it wasn't him threatened but his wife.

If you cannot produce evidence for this statement how are you different than the ones you say you don't believe? I find conspiracy theories boring.

 

[777Sloan]

.

 

[Hank77]

You don't have to do that, use the big things that are well known and can't be denied.

Example When Hillary advocated bombing etc. Iraq, the war in Afghanistan had already been going on <how long> and the promised rebuilding of Afghanistan had not yet gotten much of anywhere. The initial claim was we were going to rebuild Afghanistan, oh, and maybe we would have to do a little bombing and fighting first, but even in the peaceful areas we have forgotten to do the rebuilding.

Example And after the war in Iraq had been going on for 8 years and there were 'regrets' they claimed about having destroyed all the state security services, then Hillary did guess what

Destroyed the state security services in Libya having forgotten what was going on in Iraq as a result of the same action.

The Washington Post gives her a clear pass, claiming that she had killed a lot of the right people, failing to notice that this was part of the problem, and doing the usual

claiming she isn't evil but just amazingly stupid.

Well that is mostly just their opinion then, isn't it. Do you have to believe it? I know I don't have to believe it.
I know that I cannot possibly know everything that is going on in the Middle East. I'm not privy to all the info. and neither is the media.
When circumstances change the plan may have to change. It's good to have contingency plans even if they are not perfect.
When any tragedy, such as Benghazi, occurs we just naturally want to put a face on the blame. In the end the SoS is where the responsibility lies. But we cannot possibly believe that she was the only one that made the decisions that lead up to that night and it ending in tragedy. I have to at least give her credit for not dragging anyone else under the bus with her. Who was it that kept changing the orders on the rescue team located in Spain, who caused that delay? Was that military leader even telling the truth about that? We may never know.

 

[J Cord]

Such honesty is appreciated.

If I'm not mistaken, Jill Stein has also come out about Hillary's questionable political inclinations.

Oh, I'm so glad you trust Jill Stein's opinion:

Jill Stein diagnoses Donald Trump

“I don’t pretend to be able to do TV diagnosis, but I think the guy has a problem,” Dr. Stein said on Politico’s “Off Message” podcast. “The guy has a lot of problems -- physical, mental, emotional, cognitive,” Stein said.

LOL, looks like she thinks Trump is a disaster both mentally and physically. So you agree, right?

 

[J Cord]

I suggest avoiding Politifact and Snopes. Both are known for leftist bias.

Well yeah, if you want reality, you're going to find a liberal bias.

If you want someone to agree with your personal fantasies regardless of the evidence, then stick with conservative sites like Breitbart, they will make you happy.

 

[J Cord]

How is it done? What sites? And how do you know they're not biased?

Politifact explains how they came to their conclusions. You can verify what they say, that's always the best, and avoid sites that are advocates for White Supremacists (rebranded "the alt-right") like Breitbart, they aren't reputable.

 

[Miss Shelby]

When they produce evidence such as documents, official videos of speeches, things they have written, interviews they gave, etc. is the only time I feel like I can trust what any of them say.
So even if someone is biased, if they have actual evidence that supports their statements, it doesn't matter what their biases are, does it?

So Wikileaks having actual documents can be trusted?

 

[Miss Shelby]

 

[Hank77]

So Wikileaks having actual documents can be trusted?

Official documents such as votes cast in Congress, federal documents, transcripts of statements given before Congress, or an investigation, etc. not things that could have been doctored and manipulated such as hacked emails.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I suggest avoiding Politifact and Snopes. Both are known for leftist bias.

How did you find out that they have leftist bias?

Through what kind of research did you come to that conclusion?

Who funded the said research?

Was the funding-provider somehow involved in politics?

 

[Vylo]

check the sources, this why snopes is one of the most trustworthy.