Is the art of fact checking obsolete now???

[jbartle1]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.

[Hape2Bhr]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate. :shocked:

[justjim]

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

[jbartle1]

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

There you are, "Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind", Amen!!!!

[Ecuadog]

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate. :shocked:

I think DuckDuckGo is less biased.

[GrumpyOldMan]

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate. :shocked:

They do exactly that. Their software analyzes what you search for and what you read and put more weight on those than other selections. So, if you normally go to liberal leaning sites, they show you those, if you normally go to right leaning sites, they show you those. If you normally go to cooking sites they should you those.

They are only interested in making money, and they do that by providing you with links that keep you using them. If you believe they have an agenda, well, there it is money, they want more of it.

[GrumpyOldMan]

I think DuckDuckGo is less biased.

It is in a sense, that it does not use your browsing history to add weight to the listings it thinks you want to read. Googles only interest in prioritizing listings is to make you happy and so they make more money. Any other suggestions are just another conspiracy.

[GrumpyOldMan]

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

So true, both the opinion and the quote.

I ask myself everyday, what if "they" are correct. Sadly for the most part THEY are not. But, sometimes THEY are, and I have some soul searching to do...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.

[jdulej]

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.
You should take a look at The Guardian (a bit lefty, but they try to be fair) and BBC. Neither have paywalls yet.
In defense of paywall, these news sites do have to pay their bills. The supported free viewing for a long time but I fully understand why they stopped. Used to pay for a newspaper, now pay to see decent, vetted news online.

[Hape2Bhr]

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.

I found similar results with Bing, I've been using Bing for a while now (I like their daily quizzes and changing homepages). However I've noticed that even though FN far outnumbers CNN viewership, I rarely see the FN version listed on the 1st page. And I don't like that FN updates their homepage every minute or so; so I've avoided it if possible. Sometimes Bing only lists 4 or 5 results on the 1st page, which baffles me.

Who/what is "the gateway pundit"?

[TSO/ISPF]

You should take a look at The Guardian (a bit lefty, but they try to be fair) and BBC. Neither have paywalls yet.
In defense of paywall, these news sites do have to pay their bills. The supported free viewing for a long time but I fully understand why they stopped. Used to pay for a newspaper, now pay to see decent, vetted news online.

digital times subscription is 1 dollar a week.

[Topspinmo]

They do exactly that. Their software analyzes what you search for and what you read and put more weight on those than other selections. So, if you normally go to liberal leaning sites, they show you those, if you normally go to right leaning sites, they show you those. If you normally go to cooking sites they should you those.

They are only interested in making money, and they do that by providing you with links that keep you using them. If you believe they have an agenda, well, there it is money, they want more of it.

There lot of money in in two party system. How else do they get rich running there mouths.

[Topspinmo]

Imo in today’s environment they no actual fact checking. It’s either us or them facts moves the facts to opinions. Actually the only facts are seen by the one observing. Now the problem lies when they tell the story and how that story interpreted. Just cause you read about it or buy book and read it don’t make it true.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I found similar results with Bing, I've been using Bing for a while now (I like their daily quizzes and changing homepages). However I've noticed that even though FN far outnumbers CNN viewership, I rarely see the FN version listed on the 1st page. And I don't like that FN updates their homepage every minute or so; so I've avoided it if possible. Sometimes Bing only lists 4 or 5 results on the 1st page, which baffles me.

Who/what is "the gateway pundit"?

Gateway Pundit is an alt-right extremist conspiracy website that is known to publish complete fiction, and pass it off as news. Sort of like if the Onion wasn't kidding.

[tvbound]

All too many people don't even bother using the more reliable and legitimate news sources anymore and eat up/latch on to anything they see that is confirmation bias - instead of facts and a balanced viewpoint.

Which News Sources Are the Most Objective? - The Factual | Blog (https://www.thefactual.com/blog/most-objective-news-sources/)

[Eg_cruz]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.
If you trust google …….remember you only find what they want you to find
Try DuckDuckGo for fact checking

[Kelevision]

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous

So true……

[Miriam2940]

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate. :shocked:

Sort of like the Daily Sun

[Madelaine Amee]

All too many people don't even bother using the more reliable and legitimate news sources anymore and eat up/latch on to anything they see that is confirmation bias - instead of facts and a balanced viewpoint.

Which News Sources Are the Most Objective? - The Factual | Blog (https://www.thefactual.com/blog/most-objective-news-sources/)

Thank you for listing the attachment to your post. Very interesting and rather surprising. Happily for me, I get my news from two sources listed. :)

[Hiltongrizz11]

I don't think anyone's obligated to provide any sources. People can say what they want and you can take it or leave it. You want to challenge it you go find the sources.

This isn't a college thesis class it's social media.

[Bay Kid]

Depends on who is running your fact check site. Every morning when my computer comes on I get Yahoo news. Soooo bad.

[lkagele]

If you trust google …….remember you only find what they want you to find
Try DuckDuckGo for fact checking

Or Qwant.

[Luggage]

Actually I believe Bing pays Google to use their search. But I think you should Google that to make sure I'm correct. And I'm not trying to be funny here

[Luggage]

The stories you read on the bottom of the initial page of Google or Yahoo or based on your previous reading and clicking of stories as well as your search patterns. However your actual search results are based on algorithms that are changed every three to four months and millions and millions are spent on by Google and Yahoo engineers. I can tell you there are over a hundred different areas that they base their engineering on to give you the results that they think you were going to want. Mostly it's relevancy and that is usually quantitatively figured on please reasons and I'm giving you just the top several:
Ranking of popularity of the site based on how many people have clicked on that site

Keyword analysis , in other words how many times the words in your search appear in the website

Backlinks, these are the links from other sites that if you click would go to your site that Google shows you.

How many videos and images with what are called internal tags with the keywords you have typed it as a search engine, in other words every time there's an image and a website the designer puts in a tag that you cannot see but that Google sees.

By the way as a gentleman above said 90% of the people only click the first page of Google searches that's your missing thousands of other possibly relevant sites that might actually be better for you to read. Out of the top 100 or 200 sites Wikipedia which used to be accurate pops up quite a lot and there are quite a few image sites p*** sites and news organizations because I constantly turn content out hundreds of pages on websites every single day . This is all called SEO or search engine optimization and if you're really good at it you can make a lot of money helping websites get to the top of the page which is nearly impossible for small local companies. I do videos and article writing for some websites now in my retirement which is fun so this is why I know all about this, I am by far no true expert but know just enough to be dangerous

[Rose Ann Vinci Igoe]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.

then what does 'she' use to gather her "correct' information?

[jljl62040]

All too many people don't even bother using the more reliable and legitimate news sources anymore and eat up/latch on to anything they see that is confirmation bias - instead of facts and a balanced viewpoint.

Which News Sources Are the Most Objective? - The Factual | Blog (https://www.thefactual.com/blog/most-objective-news-sources/)

Rating NPR as being highly factual proves to me that "The Factual" site isn't factual at all. NPR constantly yells out half-truths or no-truths. NPR is strongly biased to the left.

[jljl62040]

You should take a look at The Guardian (a bit lefty, but they try to be fair) and BBC. Neither have paywalls yet.
In defense of paywall, these news sites do have to pay their bills. The supported free viewing for a long time but I fully understand why they stopped. Used to pay for a newspaper, now pay to see decent, vetted news online.

I'm not familiar with The Guardian. Took a brief look at their website but couldn't tell much about their biases from that. The BBC is NPR's go-to news source and NPR is heavily biased to the left despite their claim of being "fair and balanced".

[toeser]

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate. :shocked:

I stopped using Google quite awhile ago, unless it's just to search for a shopping item or something. If you wish to know what's going on in the world, you need to use a "less managed" search engine. Duckduckgo is better and I also use Dogpile. Dogpile draws from other search engines including Google, but you will see links you will not get from Google alone.

[tvbound]

Rating NPR as being highly factual proves to me that "The Factual" site isn't factual at all. NPR constantly yells out half-truths or no-truths. NPR is strongly biased to the left.

Just because a person doesn't like the 'facts' being presented, doesn't lessen the truth - that they are facts. And unlike so many other sources, NPR is quick to apologize and/or correct anything they subsequently find was incorrect. If only more sources had their integrity and ethics.

[jammaiora]

Thanks! Good point, because I see/read comments made by Villagers, who are parroting what the heard on the Noise/propaganda cable networks without fact checking what they are parroting.

[Number 10 GI]

Gateway Pundit is an alt-right extremist conspiracy website that is known to publish complete fiction, and pass it off as news. Sort of like if the Onion wasn't kidding.

Sounds like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and all the other main stream media. I'll throw in FOX also even if I'm a conservative, they sensationalize a lot of their content. None of them are to be trusted to tell the unbiased story, it is up to the listener to use their brain to figure out the truth.

[RoadToad]

I find it amazing that Google feeds you the news that they deem appropriate. :shocked:

...You really don't know how a Search Engine works do you...

Anything that contradicts ones narrative is
"..feeding you the news that they deem appropriate.."

Not withstanding the FACTS...
Amazing....

[RoadToad]

So true, both the opinion and the quote.

I ask myself everyday, what if "they" are correct. Sadly for the most part THEY are not. But, sometimes THEY are, and I have some soul searching to do...

Your demographic profile is used to tailor Ads to you...
The search results are not..
Try this; put the same search into Google, Bing, Duck Duck, Wofrem, etc The results will be extremely similar, and often identical.
Everybody, all together now.....GO..

[Madelaine Amee]

So it basically appears to me that "we" all believe what we want to believe to be factual according to our political leaning. :ohdear:

[jbartle1]

After reading, and watching most networks, I will then fact check Snopes and others, and then, only then, draw my own conclusions. I'm a stickler on the TRUTH, which is NOT trending (must be the fear instilled in me as a child and that giant bar of soap that found its way to my mouth on a few occasions, ugh!) Lesson learned early.

[tvbound]

So it basically appears to me that "we" all believe what we want to believe to be factual according to our political leaning. :ohdear:

Self-explanatory.

[Boomer]

If you would like an in-depth look at how our country is under the influence of conspiracy theories/propaganda, google :) the following words: The Atlantic Shadowland.

That will take you to the Shadowland series of articles that you might find interesting. (Eventually, they will require a subscription, but you might be able to choose a couple of articles to read before it cuts you off. Or if a title of an article gets your attention, you might be able to find it elsewhere under its title. Or a library might have a subscription.)

Boomer

[graciegirl]

So it basically appears to me that "we" all believe what we want to believe to be factual according to our political leaning. :ohdear:

Some of us were trained by really ethical journalists.* (Our granddaughter is a really ethical journalist.)

Although I sometimes do not agree with the opinions voiced, I respect facts from the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The AP Wire.

[Joelack99]

Using the words Google and media in the same sentence is the first problem. As others have pointed out, Google is a for-profit amalgamator of information. Social media in general is not news, but an “echo chamber” designed to feed us what we want to see, so we continue to click, feeding them. News organizations tend to have some amount of bias as well, though when I got my degree in Journalism, we learned that a professional news organization should have a dedication to truth telling as a core principle. Well, that was a long time ago.

Especially in an age where anyone with a keyboard can call themselves “news,” how do you judge your news source? I have found this bias checking source that at least gives you a scale to judge your news source vs. others. I highly recommend you see where your favorite source is on a chart like this one. Ad Fontes Media – Home of the Media Bias Chart (https://adfontesmedia.com/)

[JMintzer]

Just because a person doesn't like the 'facts' being presented, doesn't lessen the truth - that they are facts. And unlike so many other sources, NPR is quick to apologize and/or correct anything they subsequently find was incorrect. If only more sources had their integrity and ethics.

Problem is, too many are too quick to post the incorrect info and the "correction" is subsequently buried or ignored...

[JMintzer]

Some of us were trained by really ethical journalists.* (Our granddaughter is a really ethical journalist.)

Although I sometimes do not agree with the opinions voiced, I respect facts from the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The AP Wire.

Well, the NYT's own ombudsman quit because his own newspaper was becoming too biased and no one would listen to him about it...

And the WaPo had to settle a lawsuit because of false information the continued to post about Nick Sandman...

And AP? They published a headline: "Palestinian Killed in Clash with Israelis"...

What happened? A palestinian terrorist drove his car into a busy bus stop, go out and started slashing people with a large machete like knife. A security guard at a nearby jewelry store rushed to the scene and dispatched the terrorist...

But the "respected" AP chose to flip the narrative...

So there's that...

[Topspinmo]

Just because a person doesn't like the 'facts' being presented, doesn't lessen the truth - that they are facts. And unlike so many other sources, NPR is quick to apologize and/or correct anything they subsequently find was incorrect. If only more sources had their integrity and ethics.

LOL 😆, the joke of the day.

[roscoguy]

Rating NPR as being highly factual proves to me that "The Factual" site isn't factual at all. NPR constantly yells out half-truths or no-truths. NPR is strongly biased to the left.

It looks like you must have quit reading the linked article way too soon. NPR is actually 23rd on the list, with an "Average Factual Grade" of 67.2%. Showing a little bias of your own maybe?

[Ben Franklin]

I rarely watch the news, except for some local stuff, and especially for the weather, but they always lie ;-) I never watch the cable Pundit shows. I do a lot of research, on-line, throwing out the far right and far left.

If I want to look up, say, "What is Treason," I wouldn't ask a question, I'd be more specific, something like, "Supreme Court decisions on treason," or "Treason cases in the US." From there you can get more info on the subject. It's more tedious, but also more informing.

[NewRealms]

You mean biased searches on Google. Check the difference between a Google search and a DuckDuckGo search. Quite the difference if you really want to learn stuff.

[JMintzer]

It looks like you must have quit reading the linked article way too soon. NPR is actually 23rd on the list, with an "Average Factual Grade" of 67.2%. Showing a little bias of your own maybe?

67.2% is a "D"... Pretty poor, if you ask me...

[Chi-Town]

If I want to search something Google is my go-to. If I want to verify I go to Snopes and FactCheck.

[jimbomaybe]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong. Waht the "Facts" are is just the tip of the iceberg, its how they are presented,spun if you will. I remember a talking head on the TV telling as how party A was meeting in SECRET, two breaths later he told as how party B was meeting behind closed doors, the subtle use of language, the constant drum beat from the media

[jimjamuser]

The only facts that some believe are the ones that match the set of beliefs they already believe. “Only a wise person has the ability to change their mind.” Anonymous
The REAL problem IS facebook whose software is designed to keep its users on the site for a maximum period of time. They do that by sending people from the middle to the left and right ends of the spectrum - they don't care. One of Facebook's early founders was so frustrated by the FB greed that he quit and wrote a tell-all book. I should read it sometime when I have more time. I believe that GOOGLE is LESS greedy and does NOT have that feature.

[jbartle1]

Sad state of affairs that truth and honesty is not trending, instead we have lies, misinformation, bias and prejudice, ugh! Fact check folks, that will heal the ignorance.

[jimjamuser]

I dunno - I just checked duck duck go vs. google and typed in "what is treason." On the first page of results (I rarely ever check a second page), most of the links were the same. Both of them offered wikipedia in the top 3.

I checked "insurrection" (just that word by itself) on duckduckgo. Got these, in order: merriam-webster definition, followed by yahoo news, kansas city news, and business insider (all 3 links to videos), followed by 4 more dictionary definitions, followed by a CNN report, a history.com report, another CNN report, a gatewaypundit report, and an abc report.

On google, I got - in order: a definition, then a merriam-webster definition, then yahoo news, star advertiser news, and msnbc news (all 3 links to videos/reports), followed by npr, then cambridge dictionary definition, then wikipedia, then youtube, the NYTimes, then MSNBC, then vocabulary stuff about the word itself.

Now, considering that I don't read the gateway pundit ever, and I refuse to read the NYTimes because you have to pay to subscribe and I won't pay, you can cancel those two out. What's left over? Both of them value CNN enough to put them on the first page of results, and both value Wikipedia enough to put them on the first page of results.

I'm not seeing bias there at all.
Side note : a person can get the NY Times morning report for FREE. It gives only headlines and a short blurb about each subject, but the price is reasonable.

[jimjamuser]

The stories you read on the bottom of the initial page of Google or Yahoo or based on your previous reading and clicking of stories as well as your search patterns. However your actual search results are based on algorithms that are changed every three to four months and millions and millions are spent on by Google and Yahoo engineers. I can tell you there are over a hundred different areas that they base their engineering on to give you the results that they think you were going to want. Mostly it's relevancy and that is usually quantitatively figured on please reasons and I'm giving you just the top several:
Ranking of popularity of the site based on how many people have clicked on that site

Keyword analysis , in other words how many times the words in your search appear in the website

Backlinks, these are the links from other sites that if you click would go to your site that Google shows you.

How many videos and images with what are called internal tags with the keywords you have typed it as a search engine, in other words every time there's an image and a website the designer puts in a tag that you cannot see but that Google sees.

By the way as a gentleman above said 90% of the people only click the first page of Google searches that's your missing thousands of other possibly relevant sites that might actually be better for you to read. Out of the top 100 or 200 sites Wikipedia which used to be accurate pops up quite a lot and there are quite a few image sites p*** sites and news organizations because I constantly turn content out hundreds of pages on websites every single day . This is all called SEO or search engine optimization and if you're really good at it you can make a lot of money helping websites get to the top of the page which is nearly impossible for small local companies. I do videos and article writing for some websites now in my retirement which is fun so this is why I know all about this, I am by far no true expert but know just enough to be dangerous
I thought that it was some VERY good information. Thank you!

[Bill14564]

Waht the "Facts" are is just the tip of the iceberg, its how they are presented,spun if you will. I remember a talking head on the TV telling as how party A was meeting in SECRET, two breaths later he told as how party B was meeting behind closed doors, the subtle use of language, the constant drum beat from the media

This (quoted post), I believe, sums up the symptom very well.

Many today don't bother to read content and apply critical thinking. Instead, they scan the headlines, grab a number without understanding the context, look for the author's opinion, and then call those "facts." Even some of the posts in this thread are exemplifying this.

In my experience, most articles should be considered opinion pieces. Some are clearly labeled as opinion and others are labeled as news but most include the bias of the author. Reading the entire article, looking for the context, and applying some critical thinking can help remove the bias and reveal the facts.

[jimjamuser]

Rating NPR as being highly factual proves to me that "The Factual" site isn't factual at all. NPR constantly yells out half-truths or no-truths. NPR is strongly biased to the left.
I vote in favor of NPR. They suit me fine. Some people tried many years back, to remove them by removing Federal funding, but the "good" people of free America fought back and prevailed. We now just have to be bothered by dumb commercials. In 1967 President Johnson authorized giving Federal aid to PUBLIC broadcasting. I guess that later some wanted to turn the "new" deal into the old and forgotten deal. BUT no dice!

[jimjamuser]

So it basically appears to me that "we" all believe what we want to believe to be factual according to our political leaning. :ohdear:
Dark media forces are working to ensure that the US becomes more like Russia and China. We are all just like flies stuck in a spider web, exhausted and waiting for the spider to leisurely come out and finish us (US) off. Facebook did NOT start that trend, but it sure helped push it over the top. Other media sites also. Pick your poison, but the spider is now in control. Too bad the clock can't be rewound about 50 or so years to the peak of US Democracy when media could still be BELIEVED in!

[Wyseguy]

Really!, it's amazing the knowledge you can gather thru Google. Talked to an acquaintance the other day, who said, she NEVER uses Google, really! Pick your fact checking sources before posting, and you will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much you've gotten wrong.

Google can find you tons of information that agrees with their point of view. Kind of like a fascist government. In Nazi Germany not only did they give you THEIR news, they supplied the radio, already set to the gov't station. Such helpful folks.

[Wyseguy]

If I want to search something Google is my go-to. If I want to verify I go to Snopes and FactCheck.

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

[Wyseguy]

Sad state of affairs that truth and honesty is not trending, instead we have lies, misinformation, bias and prejudice, ugh! Fact check folks, that will heal the ignorance.

Didn't the fact checkers say Biden did NOT look at his watch as they brought home our deceased service members. Sure, a few days later they said that video proof made it impossible for them to lie, but still.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The REAL problem IS facebook whose software is designed to keep its users on the site for a maximum period of time. They do that by sending people from the middle to the left and right ends of the spectrum - they don't care. One of Facebook's early founders was so frustrated by the FB greed that he quit and wrote a tell-all book. I should read it sometime when I have more time. I believe that GOOGLE is LESS greedy and does NOT have that feature.

I'm on Facebook throughout the day. I see only the content I want to see, I see no political ads, no sponsored ads of any kind, no sponsored videos of any kind, political or otherwise. I'm offered a list of videos that I -can- watch if I want, based on what I've actively searched for. Nothing is ever offered to me that wasn't already on my "interests" lists in the first place.

But I use FBP (Fluff-Busting Purity), it's an independent extension for Facebook that filters out ads, gives you MUCH more control over content, your friends lists, tells you when someone removes you from their friends list, lets you watch videos ad-free, etc. etc.

[ritafricke]

Google censors the info they give. DuckDuck Go is a much better option that doesn't censor.

[Hape2Bhr]

[QUOTE=OrangeBlossomBaby;2007244]I'm on Facebook throughout the day. I see only the content I want to see,

That may very well be a problem.

[graciegirl]

I'm on Facebook throughout the day. I see only the content I want to see, I see no political ads, no sponsored ads of any kind, no sponsored videos of any kind, political or otherwise. I'm offered a list of videos that I -can- watch if I want, based on what I've actively searched for. Nothing is ever offered to me that wasn't already on my "interests" lists in the first place.

But I use FBP (Fluff-Busting Purity), it's an independent extension for Facebook that filters out ads, gives you MUCH more control over content, your friends lists, tells you when someone removes you from their friends list, lets you watch videos ad-free, etc. etc.

Me too. I don't see political ads and rarely any sponsored ads or videos. (I immediately delete them if they come up) My interest list is also the guide to what I see. I don't have any filters, but this one sounds interesting. Does it cost much?

[roscoguy]

67.2% is a "D"... Pretty poor, if you ask me...

Well, it's definitely not great & lower than I'd have guessed, but I haven't listened to NPR since I quit driving to work. Being 23rd of 53 on that list is probably better than a "D" though, especially when you consider that many people get their info from sources that didn't even make the list.

Check out all the other 'sources' that come in lower than 67% "Factual".

Which News Sources Are the Most Objective? - The Factual | Blog (https://www.thefactual.com/blog/most-objective-news-sources/)

[kkingston57]

Hate to say this but Google and/or other search engines cause and/or contrubute towards poor/erroneous information.

All of us need to consider the source of the information. I can not tell how many time an acquaintence of mine who sells cosmetics, sends out all kinds of disparaging medical information via Facebook. Unfortunately some people accept her informaion with out looking at the most reliable sources of info.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

These days, you have to work at overcoming individual biases and your confirmation bias to distinguish between event reporting, mostly factual, and analysis reporting, mostly opinion with a heavy dose of source bias. . .

lawyer training is the best, because you have to present both sides of the same set of facts to a judge/jury which requires understanding the different viewpoints for the same set of facts. . . as there are always different viewpoints from the same set of facts because each individual is unique, therefore, truth or facts are a set of circumstances where a large proportion of the observers can agree. . .

because we are all unique humans with biases and opinions and beliefs unique to the individual . .

now get off the internet and get moving as that will keep you alive longer than sitting. . .