Consider, dear reader:
It would be a herculean effort for the conservative movement to scale up anything close to the left’s fact-check industry. The mainstream media, social media, and most other media channels have pretty much been captured by the left already.https://www.ncregister.com/blog/taking-a-closer-look-at-snopes-and-debunking-the-debunkers
And to be honest, conservatives are less apt to spend their days churning out clickbait for use in Twitter warfare. It’s a tactic much more in vogue with the self-righteous left, who can’t imagine that anything but its preferred policy is the scientific truth above all else, despite what the actual truth may be.
Much credit can be given to failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who endlessly called for fact checks during her debate with then-candidate Donald Trump. When you aren’t winning a policy debate, it’s much easier to appeal to a supposedly “third party” judge who is on your team already.
Note very well that Clinton didn’t simply say that she wanted laws to be enacted and enforced even if religious believers disagreed with them. She went much further and specifically said that religious beliefs—and by extension the believers—have to change. Make no mistake, Clinton and her confrères have in mind a worldwide mission of “religious reform.”Snopes:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/snopes-suspends-co-founder-mass-plagiarism-staff-revolts
Firstly, they're accused, not of false debunking, the real claim, but of a side issue. The article's been archived but in a post at N.O. in March, 2021, I quoted the article:
Five years later, and Mikkelson's just been suspended by Snopes after BuzzFeed uncovered massive plagiarism - including instructing other Snopes writers to 'cut-and-paste' mainstream breaking news stories without attribution, and then alter them after the fact.Then we get into Factcheckdotcom ... one of many supposed "fact check" services, all funded by someone not stated and they got stuck into a Daily Mail article, which in my eyes is shoddy anyway, going off at tangents and not nailing Mikkelson for outright unsupported declarations of "false".
At this point, I'm inserting in this post my own claim that the antiWoke are often lazy in their digging, not comprehensive, easily bored and not willing to follow through and then archive. Just the DM gap between the article and comments is filled with huge, lurid adverts but if you do spend time in comments beyond commenters just chorusing the "Snopes are leftwing fraudsters" trope with no facts to back it up, a really dispiriting response, upon which the left can immediately say, "Aha, there's the quality of rightwing debate," and on the strength of that article, they have a case for saying that.
Until we get to one commenter midway:
I emailed them at snopes one day when they had an article denying purina dog food was poisoning dogs. They responded that I was incorrect so I replied and attached a jpeg of my check from the class action suit that purina paid out. They never responded.But even there, he has no facility, in a controlled comments section, to run that jpeg.
Sometimes though, a serious site gives chapter and verse on shoddy "fact checking", e.g. today's Daily Sceptic:
... and immediately, the issue of nailing the bastards, the Herculean task, the need for resources and database we unherdable cats simply do not have ... which if you read throught that, they do seem to nail ... is a small victory on a peripheral issue, major to Toby but minor to the world. And what will now happen to Toby's post? Well, if you yourself archive the url, it's something I suppose, but hardly earth-shattering.
I myself can be accused, by myself, of lazy archiving and filing, despite a legit counter claim that N.O. has been taken down four times and though I do have, somewhere, on a stick, something on Snopes, it's not retrievable.
Why not? Because I'm one man only, of a certain increasingly mentally doddery age, as are most on this side of politics now, who is actually running a blog or two daily, which requires my attention on that. Julia here has her own blog, full time work, p,us a homelife. In short, we're not set up, as funded "fact check" sites are, with the database access they have.
They win, if only through the vast organisational capacity and narrative capture of hearts and minds. Example? Rewriting Roald Dahl, right at this moment. At least we were outraged enough to post posts on it showing how the revisionists had altered Dahl's texts.
Now what everyone should be doing is at least keeping a copy on file of that comparative jpeg of the alteration, in order, five years from now, to have something to point to. Frankly, this is a young person's game, polit-blogging ... but where are these required young people?
They're on Twitter and Gab with the 140 character limits, not researching but simply retweeting and liking.2
Lazy.
No, say the young ... we have families, jobs, home renovations, driving the kids here and there, football, there's so little time.
Well, I counter ... how come Snopes and so many others can find the time?
Answer ... they're funded to research fulltime. Look at Media Matters, Demos, Information Awareness ... they appear, fully funded, do their damage, disappear and new ones appear. Are any individual young people in their 30s and 40s in such a position? Of course not.
And finally in this post, the very fact that I have spent an hour and a half finding urls for the post is a vital hour and a half I've not spent on N.O., plus the email load of the morning. The good side is that we at least have three or four people sending material, which keeps us ticking over. And Julia? She sticks to her rails and keeps on ticking over too.
So, given all the aforementioned, how can we moan that the globo Woke left have captured the narrative and the hearts and minds of the population, when so few on our side are doing the hard yards?
Plus look at the length of this post itself. Anyone still with me here?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Unburden yourself here: