Google News Introduces Fact Check Feature -- Just In Time For the US Election (thenextweb.com) 367
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: Google today introduced a new feature that will tag and help find "fact checking in large news stories." Tagged articles will show up in the new story box on news.google.com, as well as in the Google News and Weather app for iOS and Android in the US and UK. There's a two-pronged approach to detecting fact checking. First Google looks for actual markup in the site's source code. Then Google looks for pages "that follow the commonly accepted criteria for fact checks." You can learn more about the process here. To be clear, the tags show up in small grey text above the article links -- Google itself isn't passing judgement, nor does it tell you the source article's conclusion in search results. It's merely a sign that says "hey, read me to find out the truth." Still, it's a nice way to make sure readers are at least forming opinions based on fact rather than fiction.
Yeah. Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will check with Hillary's campaign to see if it's okay to repeat the lies or just substitute their own. Credibility and truth will little to do with it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of the two main candidates in this race, one of them has a much more difficult relationship with the truth. [politifact.com]
So, it would hardly be surprising if Google's fact-check alarm went off more frequently with that candidate.
Re:Yeah. Right (Score:5, Informative)
Oh look it's a Politifact shill. Totally not biased! Much neutral! [imgur.com]
Re:Yeah. Right (Score:4, Informative)
Funny thing is Rachel Maddow has been doing a series on how Politifact gets it wrong with Democrats. You can watch it on YouTube.
In other words, you can pick and choose examples to "prove" bias either way, or just do the sensible thing and accept that Politifact is kinda shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because MSNBC is a paragon of virtue and facts. ... ... ... Bwhahahahahahaaa! MSNBC is a DNC Propaganda Bureau.
And that has been proven and fact checked. Many of the so-called news outlets have been caught with direct ties and cooperating heavily (and possibly illegally) with the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. Uh, did MSNBC report that fact?
Re: (Score:3)
that's not proof of bias jackass.
proof of bias would be if you could disprove their conclusion of those statements.
which you are totally free to attempt to do.
until you can prove politifact wrong, the fact that the democrats are telling fewer untrue statements than the GOP isn't a sign of bias.
Re: (Score:3)
If anything in this discussion is biased, it's your graphic. It cherry-picks individual ratings to make it seem like politifact favors dems. One could easily construct the same kind of disingenuous graphic that shows the reverse.
Politifact has been praised and criticized by both sides. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or are you one of those gullible people who believe that the media is biased against Trump despite the media actually greatly assistingTrump's campaign by repeating every damn stupid thing that he says? He'd never have made it through the primaries if the mainstream media weren't so obsessed with him.
They unconsciously assisted Trump. They were competing with each other for viewership. The media didn't believe its own adage, "Any news is good news" because it gives name recognition. Now, the main news outlets, and even Google search results, clearly favor Hillary.
It's the same stuff every day: Everybody is SO Appalled by ______ (insert modified v of what he actually said) that Trump said.; Clinton is (destroying, crushing, obliterating, overwhelming) Trump in popularity.
Just look at tomorrow's lead st
Re:Yeah. Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Or are you one of those gullible people who believe that the media is biased against Trump despite the media actually greatly assistingTrump's campaign by repeating every damn stupid thing that he says? He'd never have made it through the primaries if the mainstream media weren't so obsessed with him.
They unconsciously assisted Trump. They were competing with each other for viewership. The media didn't believe its own adage, "Any news is good news" because it gives name recognition. Now, the main news outlets, and even Google search results, clearly favor Hillary.
It's the same stuff every day: Everybody is SO Appalled by ______ (insert modified v of what he actually said) that Trump said.; Clinton is (destroying, crushing, obliterating, overwhelming) Trump in popularity.
Just look at tomorrow's lead stories. That's what they will say.
This, btw, is why you should vote against Hillary. At least Trump will have a hostile press.
The part I'd like to know is when did "the news" become 24/7 instructions on what to think and feel about things.
Try it, just consume whatever news you do, and take note of the time they spend on "the what" verses the time they spend telling you what to think and feel. "You will be shocked!" No. Dude. A responsible and intelligent (not to mention wise) person decides that stuff for themselves. YOUR job as a "journalist" (in quotes, because there aren't any anymore) is to find information, collate it into useful form, and present it.
Re: (Score:2)
That us, without a doubt, one of the most idiotic reasons to vote for someone to lead a country and I've heard plenty of stupid ones.
Who's voting *for*? I'm voting *against*.
There is no such thing as a negative vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing like letting a group with publicly declared political affiliation put in automatic links to "TRUTH".
I wonder how they'll rate the AP, the "news" org that tried to declare that Assad was an ISIS ally?
Or NBC, which declared that Hillary did nothing wrong with her email server, because she used no "corrosive chemicals" to destroy evidence?
Or Google, when they declared they were not cooperating with the NSA to deliver email content? Oh, wait...
captcha: "erasable"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AP is probably the most reliable news outlet out there. They don't do editorializing for one. They do make mistakes but they correct those mistakes. Their customers are news media outlets, not the end users, so they're not stocked up on sensationalism to boost their readership like cable tv.
Of course anything coming out this close to the election may as well just be considered a lie by default. From BOTH campaigns. Anyone who feels that their candidate never lies and the other candidate only lies is to
OK but misses a larger problem (Score:5, Insightful)
which is the burying of critical stories. All these released tapes and allegations of sexual assault should have come out long ago, at least before the RNC primary. Instead they were intentionally held to benefit HRC.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead they were intentionally held to benefit HRC.
Your claim is interesting, but I don't see a "Fact Check:" label anywhere.
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:5, Informative)
which is the burying of critical stories. All these released tapes and allegations of sexual assault should have come out long ago, at least before the RNC primary. Instead they were intentionally held to benefit HRC.
Actually it's just a case of what-goes-around-comes-around. Some of the women have explicitly stated that they were motivated to come out by his denials during the second debate.
Poetic justice, IMO, after featuring Blll Clinton's accusers as the centerpiece of his strategy last weekend. He's outraged that anyone would be interested in the same accusations against him.
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I applaud these women. The vast, vast majority of women, sexually assaulted on a fucking airplane full of people by a goddamn billionaire would have immediately screamed bloody murder and filed lawsuits resulting in multi-million dollar settlements. But no, these brave, strong independent wymynz stoically held their silence for 30 goddamn years to all release their stories on the same day 4 weeks before an election for God and cuntry. There's nothing at all fishy about this to anyone except those who hate strong independent wymynz what don't need no man.
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How different were things last year?
Re: OK but misses a larger problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Or women could stop carrying on like sexual assualt is the only crime mankind needs to address, and stop having such a sensitive trigger.
OMG he looked in my vague direction! Help! Police! Sexual assualt.
Half the time it's insecure women who are just crying out to convince the world they are desirable by pretending some random guy desired them inappropriately.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we should teach women as well? According to the rules set by the "1 in 4 women is sexually assaulted" I have been: Assaulted more times than I care to count and raped twice. As a large 200 lb man. Women did all of those things to me.
I've accepted that there are assholes in the world and that some one grabbing my ass or crotch on the dance floor or bus is one of those things assholes do.
But I don't let that dictate my life, nor do I sit around and throw a pity party. Compared to how humans have existe
Re: OK but misses a larger problem (Score:3)
You know your plan is a good progressive one when it relies on perfecting human nature.
Ah, eugenics, why don't progressives like you any more?
Re: (Score:3)
Give them time, they'll warm up to it. What do you think all this forced migration is about anyway?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why we need chaperones. Rich, powerful men are always gonna grab the pussy. [youtube.com] An awful lot of women are gold digging whores who let them grab the pussy, because that's how they get gold. Some frigid dykes, though, get all pissy about it and scream "sexual harrrrraaaaaaaaaassment!" But they can't even be reliably counted on to cry about it the century it happens so we can pretend to care before they turn into wrinkled old hags. They're attention-seeking bitches, too, and they gotta save it up until ju
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:5, Interesting)
https://i.sli.mg/iBUuJ9.png
https://i.sli.mg/jbe6G3.png
https://i.sli.mg/2jvEeE.jpg
nothing fishy at all
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you believe Juanita Broderick? She waited twenty years to come forward.
I can only imagine the frustration of being a Trump supporter and realizing that you have the one candidate who makes Bill Clinton's creepy sexual history meaningless. All you had to do is find a candidate who wasn't a skeeve, and yet you flocked to the self-professed skeeve like ants to a piece of rotting fruit.
Donald Trump will never be president. Mark it down. Learn from your mistakes. And for chrissake, stop your whining.
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:4, Informative)
She was scared to accuse the Attorney General of the state (who already had a body count). Also, in 1978, inviting a man up to her room could plausibly be taken the wrong way. Remember what Hillary had already done to Kathy Shelton a few years earlier. If Juanita had formally accused Bill of rape, she'd have been on the receiving end of all that, and probably much more.
Still, she didn't keep completely silent, she told a few people, including a nurse that found her in bed a few hours after the attack, and some other close friends. Some of those people blabbed, and word got out. People hid tape recorders when talking to her in hopes of getting her to drop her guard and talk about it. She refused to talk about it, saying "you can't get to him, and I'm not going to ruin my good name to do it ... here's just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he's just too vicious".
After something like seven years of trying to get her to talk, the story was openly circulating in the tabloids with her name attached, and she finally relented.
If you've seen any of the early interviews with her, it is pretty obvious why she didn't want to talk about it for 20 years. It is still a very painful memory for her, and she is visibly shaken when talking about it.
There are some notable elements missing from Juanita's story. Until Trump tricked them, the press wouldn't touch her story with a 10 foot pole because it is missing these elements, which apparently dictate which stories are credible:
* plagarism from other famous sexual assault cases and/or pop songs
* robotic monotone retelling
* claims that her attacker had superhuman strength (to bend a solid aluminum airline seat)
* total silence even to her closest friends until the last few weeks before an election
* contradictory stories told to close friends at the time of the incident
* The One Ring to become invisible to slip past guard/chaperones stationed outside the door
* laughably public setting
* heavy involvement with the other candidate's campaign
Re: OK but misses a larger problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Your worldview depends on snopes. You might want to do something about that.
Re:OK but misses a larger problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wow. Snopes calls it "Mostly False" because some of the ancillary details aren't right. Stop the fucking presses! Someone tell the New York Times that snopes is choking on Hillary's dick again!
Also newsworthy, Politifact studiously avoided learning any details of the case that might contradict the headline they assigned to it in advance. Consider this one example:
Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense, which promptly destroyed it. Then, in a move that only a lawyer could love, the defense asked that the key evidence be thrown out because after destroying it, they were unable to verify the state lab's conclusion.
And did you catch the extreme spin they put on the polygraph statement? Every human on the planet that understands English and is more than about 5 years old understood exactly what she meant. But not snopes! Nope, snopes spun that into a general laugh about the polygraph supporting the defense instead of the prosecution, because Hillary, with her extensive first-case-ever experience "knew" that the polygraph usually helps the prosecutor. That sounds like a good reason to laugh about losing all faith in polygraphs. Right? Right?
Snopes and politifact are Marxist political opinion sites that only pretend to be interested in facts. (We can add Google to that list.) No one but fellow Marxists actually believes them any more. You remember the one where Trump and Sanders both quoted the same figure for black youth unemployment and they scored the Sanders one true and the Trump one false? Classic.
Oh, and mustn't forget NBC. New to this game, but catching up fast [wordpress.com].
But good work ignoring the bulk of my post to concentrate on the one tiny part that you imagined you already had a good answer to.
Re: (Score:3)
You know that there are other versions of this story, right? In some versions of the story, the state crime lab only cut out half of the blood spot, leaving enough for a retest. The defense then cut a sample from an unknown location, didn't find anything, then lost the remainder of the article so it was impossible to tell if the defense had actually tested the same spot or not.
Also, quote from the article you linked:
Re: (Score:2)
If someone doing that kind of garbage has some way of asserting the impression of authority, it makes it even harder for people to act against them. One of those little foibles of a cooperative society.
Also don't forget th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's just a case of what-goes-around-comes-around. Some of the women have explicitly stated that they were motivated to come out by his denials during the second debate.
Poetic justice, IMO, after featuring Blll Clinton's accusers as the centerpiece of his strategy last weekend. He's outraged that anyone would be interested in the same accusations against him.
Trump's outrage: Donald Trump Calls Allegations by Women ‘False Smears’ [nytimes.com]
“The establishment and their media neighbors wield control over this nation through means that are very well known — anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed,” Mr. Trump said. “They will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again, they will do worse than that. They will do whatever’s necessary.” [emphasis mine]
And *anyone* that challenges Trump ... um, well... pretty much the same thing.
[ He -- and the RNC (establishment) and Fox News (media neighbors) -- really shouldn't be casting these stones. ]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's just a case of what-goes-around-comes-around. Some of the women have explicitly stated that they were motivated to come out by his denials during the second debate.
Poetic justice, IMO, after featuring Blll Clinton's accusers as the centerpiece of his strategy last weekend. He's outraged that anyone would be interested in the same accusations against him.
Trump's outrage: Donald Trump Calls Allegations by Women ‘False Smears’ [nytimes.com]
“The establishment and their media neighbors wield control over this nation through means that are very well known — anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed,” Mr. Trump said. “They will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again, they will do worse than that. They will do whatever’s necessary.” [emphasis mine]
And *anyone* that challenges Trump ... um, well... pretty much the same thing.
[ He -- and the RNC (establishment) and Fox News (media neighbors) -- really shouldn't be casting these stones. ]
Trump is showing that he doesn't even know how to be a politician. After the tape came out on Friday, a real politician would have rushed to the cameras with his best insincere apology ("in case anyone was offended"), dismissed it as a youthful indiscretion, and put it behind him.
But Trump's ego and thin skin won't allow that. Instead he has to find someone to blame for his self-inflicted wounds, and go on the offensive against them. Rather than defusing the situtation, he escalates it into a battle he c
Re: (Score:2)
He's the Man!
I have also been arrested for sexual assault whilst following his advice and I hope that Mr Trump will issue a Presidential pardon to me as soon as he is sworn in.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just NBC.
Percentage of Trump's coverage (during the primary) that was positive or neutral in tone:
USA Today: 74%
Fox: 73%
LA Times: 71%
Wall Street Journal: 68%
CBS: 66%
NBC: 65%
Washington Post: 65%
NY Times: 63%
[source: shorensteincenter.org]
I wish I knew the figures for the post-Convention coverage.
It appears that the media helped Hillary get the opponent that she wanted [source: Wikileaks].
Sure Google.... (Score:4, Informative)
... as though I'm going to trust a mega-corp for the truth.
http://www.democracynow.org/20... [democracynow.org]
https://capitalresearch.org/20... [capitalresearch.org]
https://www.spreaker.com/user/... [spreaker.com]
http://observer.com/2016/08/te... [observer.com]
Eric Schmidt is a giant Hillary Supporter (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.bing.com/search?q=... [bing.com]
Hell the man built a company just to help Hillary (search for Hillary, Eric Schmidt, Groundgame)
So just who is going to be able to fact check Google's already established bias ?
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09... [dailycaller.com]
I think I am going to start rotating search engines. Variety is likely for the best.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty obvious you have the Google hate-boner thing happening here, as you apparently did a search for "Google" and "bias", then pasted the first 2 results that appeared to bash Google without even reading them.
Otherwise, you'd surely have noticed that they're both really laughably shitty articles that do nothing whatsoever to back you up, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which they were able to do by the Liberty fought for by Republicans.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by L
If it's like Politifake, expect far left bias. (Score:2)
If statement agrees with the establishment: Fact.
If statement disagrees with the establishment: Not Fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney [wikipedia.org]
Fun Fact (with parallels to Trump's "birtherism" and "Mexican-parented" judge-baiting): George Romney was born in Mexico. "Q
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupation [wikipedia.org]
Re:If it's like Politifake, expect far left bias. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you are in the camp of "both are establishment", which makes no sense to me. They both have money and are elitist, but that's not the issue in a principate. This may literally be one of the last times (in anyone reading's lifetime) that the political arena will result in a choice between a self-appointed egoist (who basically scammed his way via celebrity) and a multinational political favorite for POTUS. This will poison that contest forever, either through his failure to win or his failure as a president.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty simple how many 100s of millions did Trump get from Wall Street, Answer none.
Re: (Score:2)
The density of thought in that sentence is approaching that a of a black whole, from which no thought will ever escape.
The Donald *is* Wall Street.
Hillary just goes to Wall Street for money like nearly every one else.
Is the reality distortion field so great that this actually requires stating?
Re: (Score:2)
An alarmingly large portion of the US electorate believes that someone without political or governmental experience would make a better candidate than someone who has devoted the bulk of their life to the field.
Would you prefer a doctor who hadn't been tainted by going to medical school? A surgeon who never before performed surgery?
Would you prefer an airplane pilot who never went to flight school but "knows he can fly that damn thing"?
Re: (Score:2)
It may be related to a 2011 study [arxiv.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama [wikipedia.org]
Re: If it's like Politifake, expect far left bias (Score:3)
Right. One of those candidates has actually built something and has prior executive experience.
This year, one of the candidates has a proven track record of corruption followed by cover-up followed by repeating the process.
(Personally, I plan on voting for the budget-balancing governors in this race.)
Re: (Score:2)
You think the establishment is far-left?
Goodness.
Re: (Score:3)
There's lots of large wealthy democracies whee Sanders would be a centrist.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people call things facts that are not facts.
How people present facts may be false or incomplete, but facts aren't, they are still verifiable data.
It's possible to be deceptive and still use facts, after all, you can mix them with lies, but it still doesn't change that facts are facts. If you do fact checking, you are verifying the data of the statement. If it passes, it's actually a fact and not a fake. If it fails to be verified, odds are you are looking at a lie.
What's so bl
Google Facts (Score:4, Informative)
Hoping this from one of the links will lead to better-informed comments:
Fact Check
Google News may apply this label to your content if you publish stories with fact-checking content that's indicated by schema.org ClaimReview markup, especially round-up stories that contain multiple fact-check analyses within a single article. The (fact-checking) label helps users find fact-checking content in major stories.
When determining whether to use this tag for your article, consider whether that article meets the following criteria, which we consider characteristics of fact-checking sites:
Discrete claims and checks must be easily identified in the body of fact-check articles. Readers should be able to understand what was checked, and what conclusions were reached.
Analysis must be transparent about sources and methods, with citations and references to primary sources.
The organization must be nonpartisan, with transparent funding and affiliations. It should examine a range of claims in its topic area, instead of targeting a single person or entity.
Article titles must indicate that a claim is being reviewed, state the conclusions reached, or simply frame that the articleâ(TM)s contents consist of fact checking.
Please note, that if we find sites not following those criteria for the ClaimReview markup, we may, at our discretion, either ignore that site's markup or remove the site from Google News.
Re: (Score:2)
So lying gets a little harder... (Score:2)
Sounds like sites that serve lies (of whatever you want to call non-facts presented as facts) need to invest a bit more effort. On the plus side, if they do, they now have more clout, because "Google says it is true".
Another instance of Google "engineers" and "scientists" grossly overestimating what can actually be automatized and what cannot. Or maybe they just do not care as long as they get more clicks. Google is much more of a problem these days than a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If it IS fully automated based on all the information out there, then how will the system know what's real and fake? At some point someone will have to do the curating and that's where the bias will show.
The easiest way to fact check stories is as follows:
- Was it said by a politician: It's false
- In all other cases: Inaccurate at best
Those liberals (Score:3)
Why does Google have to be so anti-Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
When google was founded, their motto was "Don't be evil". When they made it big time, they built new facilities and moved their offices. Sadly, the motto was damaged in the process, and they were only able to salvage the last two words.
Re: (Score:2)
President Oboner showing of his 'Agent' as they call it double the views in 24 hours but is missing from the trending videos.
Ohh nooesss , hurry come up with a lame excuse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
who owns the media, who owns the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is never reported, it can never be fact checked.
captcha: industry
Yes, keep burning yourself (Score:2)
Politicizing your service in **ANY** way is basically asking for having half of the population hating it, which IS a bad idea and google will lose money on that.
"""Fact check""" (Score:5, Insightful)
This [snopes.com] is the type of fact checking they mean, I assume.
They rate as "Mostly False" something where the only disputable fact is whether she "volunteered" for it, and it appears she didn't. Literally everything else in the little poster is demonstrably true, in fact they actually say the same thing below.
Hillary Clinton volunteered to defend a rapist. False. OK, they're good there.
Hillary Clinton alleged that the victim was lying/crazy. True. Snopes tries to be cute and claim that she's just repeating what some psychiatrist said, because.. you know.. defense lawyers never find an expert witness to say what they want. Sorry, fact is that Clinton accused the victim of being crazy. Sure, she used the "I have been told" weasel words, but as we know from Trumps similar tactic that means nothing. It's in the affidavit and she signed it.
Hillary got the guy off a longer sentence, and laughed about it. True. Again, these are unarguable facts. You can certainly quibble over context, but the fact is that the guy got a reduced sentence, that she implied he was guilty, and that she laughed about said implication. All public record and undeniable.
So tell me how that is "mostly false"? I might give them credit if they said "mixed" or "depends on context and interpretation". I can also see how even in the context of these facts you could say that none of it is a big deal, and that's a valid interpretation. But just "Mostly False"? No. It's isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton alleged that the victim was lying/crazy. True.
Nope. Rather than asserting that claim, she asked for a psychiatric exam to find out:
...other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information:
Hillary got the guy off a longer sentence, and laughed about it. True.
Except it was the victim's mother who pushed for the plea deal:
The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court.
And she didn't laugh about reducing his sentence either, but about how the evidence was presented:
She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)
Context is everything, yes? If you boil it down too much, the meaning evaporates.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the video, it was a nervous laugh of a 27 year old lawyer who was dealing with a fucking horrible case. Here's a fact for you, people who witness and participate in such horrible things often joke about it as a way to deal with it. Cops make terrible horrible jokes about awful things because if they don't they will go insane. Doctors and nurses will make awful horrible jokes about medical things because otherwise they'll go fucking insane dealing with horrible and awful things all day long. Lawyers ma
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for linking to an authoritative source. That's exactly the sort of information that's needed - and it does not contradict Snope's account at all. I agree it says she made an investigation; I do not agree that it says she thinks the victim is a crazy liar:
"I have made an investigation of the facts and circumstances in this case, and and verily believe that a psychiatric examination of the defendant, , is necessary and vital in this case.
It says quite literally (not "almost") that she believes an examination is necessary, and nothing about what she personally thinks of the victim. However, I do agree her words are clearly intended to cast doubt on the victim's mental state, in the
Sure the google that buries Oboners Agent (Score:3)
President Oboner showing of his 'Agent' as they call it double the views in 24 hours but is missing from the trending videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Google is another clinton shill.
Won't work (Score:2)
People aren't interested in facts unless it's to bolster their pre-existing need. .. they are able to paint an image that all the immigrants are dangerous. They won't mention that overall murder and violent crime in the US has drastically reduced and is now at historic lows. Th
Prime example: People hate immigrants, so every time there is a crime by an immigrant it gets all over the news. Statistics are cited that in a certain location crime has skyrocketed due to immigrants. So using cherrypicking of facts
Politifact (Score:4, Insightful)
"You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails." -- Donald Trump
Politifact rates that a "Half-Truth" because (according to Politifact):
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
That's absurd. First of all, you don't fact check on an implication, it was a very straight-forward statement of fact. Secondly, the FBI finding "no evidence" doesn't even prove the implication false.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, the FBI finding "no evidence" doesn't even prove the implication false.
It proves that Trump was making statement WITHOUT evidence.
I.e. He was either lying OR basing his statement on other people's lies. Either case - he was spreading falsehoods.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it IS a proof that such a claim is nothing but unproven bullshit.
Re:Politifact (Score:4, Insightful)
But he didn't make that claim. That was the inference of Politifact. They admitted that the claim was true, added their own inference, claimed that their own inference was false (on the basis of missing evidence, which means that their own inference was simply "unproven") and then somehow assess the original claim as "half true".
Using that approach, any statement can be assessed as "half true".
Almost like it was coordinated with Obama (Score:3)
Re:Commonly accepted criteria for fact checking (Score:4, Insightful)
And thus the campaign against objective reality continues. It's exactly this blanket dismissal of factual sources that's created such fertile ground for the mud-slinging loonies on both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
with bloody war criminal scumbag like jared cohen working for google, they have serious credibility issues when it comes to news bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Your attempt to link facts with reality isn't going to pass muster.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Reality has a fascist bias.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/... [cnn.com]
Re:Expect conservative meltdown. (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not only conservatives who ignore or deny reality when it conflicts with their beliefs.
Liberals can have their own blind-spots to science, such as gender and racial differences.
Re:Expect conservative meltdown. (Score:5, Informative)
That is true. Genders and races are a real thing and there are differences between them. Not just outward appearances, but real physical or intellectual differences. On average, men are physically stronger than women, women are emotionally more stable and less aggressive than men, white people are more intelligent than black people, black men have longer ... you know, than white men.
On average.
But down to the level of individuals, it's unfair to judge people based on averages. Do you consider yourself an average person? On an individual level, everyone is different.
But the key point is that, even though people are different in many ways, be it race, gender or their individual characteristics, they all deserve to be treated the same and given the same chances. Because we are all humans with our hopes, dreams, emotions and potential, regardless of physical or intellectual ability.
In fact, many times it's the people who are at a disadvantage that perform big acts and change the world. Being handicapped in a way, but having the need for respect and recognition, is one of the strongest motivators. Short men like Napoleon and Hitler set out to conquer Europe. Physically unattractive people tend to follow intellectual pursuits and provide humanity with great innovations. Socially disadvantaged people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks engaged themselves politically and managed to change a nation.
This is why I think that "fascism" as an ideology is wrong. At first glance it might sound like a brutal, but scientifically logical idea to weed out the "weak" and only breed the pure and strong. But often times it's the "weak" who accomplish great things and move humanity forward, because they are the ones who are out there to prove themselves. Not to mention that science also tells us that genetic homogeneity is a weakness whereas diversity and the mixing of genes is critical for long-term survival.
Re:Expect conservative meltdown. (Score:5, Funny)
Prison sentences?
-- Pete.
Re: (Score:2)
black men have longer ... you know, than white men
I think you're allowed to say "cocks" on the internet.
(Never mind the fact that it's not true).
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with gender and racial differences is not that they exist, but that most people seem to assume that how they're expressed in our culture is their natural form. There's a lot more men and women in STEM. Part of this is likely to be inherent differences between men and women, but part of it is undoubtedly culture. We don't have a good way of telling how much. Are there so few women in STEM fields because males and females have different brain structure, or because girls are discouraged in way
Re: Expect conservative meltdown. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's only tens of thousands of individual documents on wikileaks and public record proving Hillary and company lying and conspiring against everything and everyone but them selves. But Trumps the liar. Thank you for correcting the record.
Re: Expect conservative meltdown. (Score:5, Insightful)
"There was no classified information on that server. None."
"It was not classified at the time."
"It was not marked classified."
"I relied on others to properly handle classified information."
Should I continue? Perhaps on transparency, or bribes, or when we should trust rape accusers?
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid the public gets nudged closer to reality by well-sourced fact checking. Just imagine if they started to hold politicians accountable for their claims! What would tabloids have to scream about, if politicians were forced to think a little before they opened their mouths?
Re:Oh Goody (Score:5, Insightful)
But who fact checks the fact checkers?
You do, obviously (Score:3)
You follow up the sources to ensure they're credible (if it doesn't list sources it's not much of a fact-checker). You also compare against other fact-checkers, to see if the sources were cherry-picked.You should already be doing this for anything even vaguely controversial you read on the internet.
Fact-checking sites aren't the sole arbiters of truth, they're just conveniences to save you the bother of googling the info yourself.
Re:You do, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is they're really just propaganda and get cited as if they're authority.
Jeb Bush: "My name is Jeb Bush."
Politificat: "Pants on fire! His real name is John Ellis Bush."
When Snopes gets political they do the stawman thing. If you make Claim A, they'll restate your claim as B, which is similar to A but not actually A, then debunk B calling it "mostly false," and then at the end say "what's actually true is A..." But all the casual observer sees is that you're a liar making mostly false claims, even though your claim was entirely true.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about 6 minute abs?
Re: (Score:2)
But who rhetoricizes the rhetoricizers?
Re: (Score:2)
You think the voters should actually be required to think? What sort of un-American euro-pansy drivel is that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FACT: any sentence that starts with FACT: is a fact. and that's a FACT.
Re: (Score:3)
That's precisely why any fact-checking site worthy of the name lists its sources, so you can verify it for yourself. And to ensure you're not being given a selective view of the truth, you certainly don't take any single site as gospel, but compare a number of them to get the full picture. They're convenient but hardly definitive.
Or just google for yourself, like you should already be doing. You seem to think that verifying facts is nigh-impossible, when it's now easier than it has ever been. Objective fact
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and he should absolutely be held accountable for any reversals of his stated position. He should be judged on his reasons for doing so.
I do not believe leaders should never be able to change their policies, but I do believe they need to be held accountable when that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful and funny at the same time. Shame Slashdot doesn't have multiple categories instead of a single rating
Well, "Insightful" != "Funny" AND "Insightful" > "Funny" (ok that can be simplified, but you see what i mean)