Newsweek just published a fact check claiming it's "false" that Ted Cruz left his dog home while he was in Cancun. Newsweek's sole basis for this "false" rating: a claim made by a spokesperson for Ted Cruz. The mainstream media just keeps getting worse.
Actually it's even worse. Newsweek acknowledges the dog was left behind, but insists it's "false" that the dog was left "home alone" because a security guard might have come around and checked on it. So now we're debating the definition of the word alone?
One hallmark of a bullshit fact check is that it makes a more stringent claim that what was actually reported to begin with – in this instance "left home alone" vs "left home" – and then uses that technicality as an excuse to slap a false rating on the entire thing.
The lazy people who rely on "fact checks" don't bother to read a fact check before deciding to believe it, so they'll believe that the dog wasn't left home at all. They'll plaster this "fact check" everywhere, because they think it makes them look smart, making it go viral.
Newsweek will get a ton of traffic from this bullshit "fact check" article, a lot of people will be left with the mistaken impression that Ted Cruz didn't leave his dog home at all, and good political analysts who wrote about the dog will be smeared for it.
About half of all "fact check" sites rely on this same trope of overstating the original claim and then labeling it "false" so it'll stir up controversy and go viral and get a ton of page views. It's why "fact check" articles tend to be less accurate than other kinds of articles.
Numerous "fact check" article also rely on the trope of slapping a "false" rating on a scandal, simply because a politician's spokesman says it's false. Then that spokesman and politician just happen to feel indebted to that news outlet going forward. Funny how that works.
Again, mainstream media outlets don't pull this nonsense because they want to help one side of the other. It's not about that. It's about page views, ratings, favor trading, and so on. You have to understand the mainstream media is a for-profit business, not some public service.
And this can't be stressed enough: it's the act of slapping a false rating on a true story that makes a "fact check" article go viral, due to the controversy it creates.
When a "fact check" says a true thing is true, or a false thing is false, it doesn't get much attention.
When a "fact check" says a true thing is true, or a false thing is false, it doesn't get much attention.
It's why the most honest fact checkers, like PolitiFact and FactCheck org, rarely go viral.
It's why Snopes, the national enquirer clown school of fact checkers, goes viral on a regular basis.
Fact checking is seen as boring by most people, unless it creates phony controversy.
It's why Snopes, the national enquirer clown school of fact checkers, goes viral on a regular basis.
Fact checking is seen as boring by most people, unless it creates phony controversy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
