|
|
| Author |
Message |
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
 Posted: Thu 11 Sep 2008 14:29 Post subject: What Reagan Should Have Said: Don't Trust, Verify |
 |
|
There are a number of reputable, independent outlets that can be relied upon to verify the claims that politicians and media personalities make. I propose that we list them here, agree on the short list as a community, and rely on them going forward prior to posting.
http://www.factcheck.org/
There are others of course but this one has a good reputation and is not partisan.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fwsweet
Administrator
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4584 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Sep 2008 18:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| What a wonderful idea! There must be a way that we can make this thread more prominently visible, especially if we can add more fact-checking sources to it. What about snopes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melani23
Superuser
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
{Posts: 1082 }
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Sep 2008 17:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | What a wonderful idea! There must be a way that we can make this thread more prominently visible, especially if we can add more fact-checking sources to it. What about snopes? |
Snopes is another good independent source. It's also a good idea to list government sources, per Melani's suggestion.
This wouldn't necessarily make these sources more prominent at point of need but we could amend the rules and list them there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melani23
Superuser
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
{Posts: 1082 }
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 20:43 Post subject: |
|
|
I cannot attest to their accuracy, but has anyone seen this one?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
| Quote: | | PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help you find the truth in the presidential campaign. Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times and CQ will analyze the candidates' speeches, TV ads and interviews and determine whether the claims are accurate. >> More |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTHER
Moderator-at-Large
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
{Posts: 935 }
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Sep 2008 21:14 Post subject: U.S. Congress Votes Database |
|
|
The Washington Post has an easy to navigate Votes Database for the U.S. Congress (House and Senate). The database is broken down in various ways, which makes it convenient for searching or for browsing.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melani23
Superuser
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
{Posts: 1082 }
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DChapman
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 1466 }
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
|
| Posted: Tue 23 Sep 2008 21:23 Post subject: Re: What Reagan Should Have Said: Don't Trust, Verify |
|
|
Thnaks Melani, I had my doubts about factcheck when I checked it out. With all the tension, I decided not to raise my doubts. I was hoping someone else would see what I was seeing and bring it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTHER
Moderator-at-Large
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
{Posts: 935 }
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:37 Post subject: Re: What Reagan Should Have Said: Don't Trust, Verify |
|
|
| DChapman wrote: |
Thnaks Melani, I had my doubts about factcheck when I checked it out. |
Ditto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 12:55 Post subject: |
|
|
I am beginning to think that perception is more important than truth for you all. In my opinion, when you get to the point that you can't even look at information objectively, even while harboring doubts, and decide on merits and track record of sources, why even bother?
I could have categorically dismissed claims simply because they came from the mouth of Michelle Malkin, one of the most ill-informed and ridiculous pundits on television (setting new low standards even for Fox), but even she can have legitimate concerns or state facts (again, infrequent as these occurrences may be). I'm sure that alarm bells go off when a non-partisan source (Annenberg School? Isn't that one of those Marxist elite Ivy League foundations?  ) is named, but why not...check the facts?
I'm not saying you have biases and I do not. Everyone does. I'm saying why not look at the information presented by factcheck.org and then make an assessment.
Can any of you answer these question:
In all of the critiques presented by factcheck.org, exactly how many times did their researchers get things wrong? What is their track record of presenting "the facts?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting: FactCheck.org, standard bearer of elitist liberal bias that it must be , conducted a survey of subscribers in 2004:
http://www.factcheck.org/factcheck_subscribers_find_us_clear_unbiased_reliable.html
Apparently, subscribers who are partisan were more likely to perceive bias in either direction, and both were in the minority of respondents.
Another question: If the left has a competing perspective that Factcheck.org has a conservative bias, does that cancel things out? 
| Quote: | | Contrary to its willingness to pass judgment on NARAL’s ad, Fact-Check cautiously avoided venturing any opinion about the Swift Boat ads. In its analysis of the August 4, 2004 ad (8/6/04), FactCheck cited a great deal of evidence that contradicted the ad’s claims—including the official Naval records and testimony from sailors who actually served on Kerry’s boat, as well as conflicting previous testimony from some Swift Boat Vets themselves. After noting these contradictions, FactCheck’s conclusion was nevertheless explicitly ambivalent: “At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.” |
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2403884 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fwsweet
Administrator
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4584 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| sagascend wrote: | | In all of the critiques presented by factcheck.org, exactly how many times did their researchers get things wrong? What is their track record of presenting "the facts?" |
I think that this view misses the point. When presenting data, you must be right all the time, every time. Otherwise you cannot be trusted. An analogy: You buy a can of mushrooms. There are 100 mushrooms in the can. Ninety-nine are fine but one will kill you if you eat it. How many would you eat, figuring that the overwhelming majority of the mushrooms are perfectly safe? A fact source that has been shown to be tainted is like a can of mushrooms. The problem is not that its facts are bad more often than not. The problem is not even that they are bad one percent of the time. The problem is that you do not know which ones are bad. So you must reluctantly throw out the entire can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | sagascend wrote: | | In all of the critiques presented by factcheck.org, exactly how many times did their researchers get things wrong? What is their track record of presenting "the facts?" |
I think that this view misses the point. When presenting data, you must right all the time, every time. Otherwise you cannot be trusted. An analogy: You buy a can of mushrooms. There are 100 mushrooms in the can. Ninety-nine are fine but one will kill you if you eat it. How many would you eat, figuring that the overwhelming majority of the mushrooms are perfectly safe? A fact source that has been shown to be tainted is like a can of mushrooms. The problem is not that its facts are bad more often than not. The problem is not even that they are bad one percent of the time. The problem is that you do not know which ones are bad. So you must reluctantly throw out the entire can. |
While I agree in principal, I disagree with the analogy. There can be no "perception" of whether a mushroom kills someone. There is no "perception" about whether it is tainted or not. Now - what would be analogous are the reasons "why" the tainted mushroom was included in the can in the first place. There can be lots of perceptions about those reasons, and some can be diametrically opposed to one another.
This seems to me to be another example of a discussion in which we cannot shift the discussion to ascertain the properties of the mushroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DChapman
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 1466 }
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 13:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | sagascend wrote: | | In all of the critiques presented by factcheck.org, exactly how many times did their researchers get things wrong? What is their track record of presenting "the facts?" |
I think that this view misses the point. When presenting data, you must right all the time, every time. Otherwise you cannot be trusted. An analogy: You buy a can of mushrooms. There are 100 mushrooms in the can. Ninety-nine are fine but one will kill you if you eat it. How many would you eat, figuring that the overwhelming majority of the mushrooms are perfectly safe? A fact source that has been shown to be tainted is like a can of mushrooms. The problem is not that its facts are bad more often than not. The problem is not even that they are bad one percent of the time. The problem is that you do not know which ones are bad. So you must reluctantly throw out the entire can. |
That's exactly my point. It is very hard for really anyone to present information in an objective manner. We're all human, it can be done, but not all the time. That goes for any ideology, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DChapman
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 1466 }
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 15:50 Post subject: |
|
|
I was not about to make sure posters check their information with "factcheck.org". This is the same as citing a "study" of some sort to back up information. Now this all pertains to political advocacy. I think this strategy is analogous to silence/censorship of ideas and opinions, or it would at least make it harder to express opinions and/or information, particuarly if it's controversial. "factcheck.org" certainly is not the arbitor or the benchmark of all known facts in the political relm. I do not think any organization is. There are many other sources information. I may agree more with some, less than with others. It really all boils down to what I have been saying over and over and over again....opinions.
I am not suggesting we do not verify any information, we should. But I do not want to be the "school teacher" or rather the "forum police" in that, "did you verify this with factcheck.org??", or "do you have a study to prove this??".
Studies are great, don't get me wrong, as I am sure I will reference factcheck.org. But they are not what there is all to this.
Even in science, and the medical field, it's the reason why we go and get a second opinion or perhaps more, isn't it??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTHER
Moderator-at-Large
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
{Posts: 935 }
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 16:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| sagascend wrote: | I am beginning to think that perception is more important than truth for you all. In my opinion, when you get to the point that you can't even look at information objectively, even while harboring doubts, and decide on merits and track record of sources, why even bother?
I could have categorically dismissed claims simply because they came from the mouth of Michelle Malkin, one of the most ill-informed and ridiculous pundits on television (setting new low standards even for Fox), but even she can have legitimate concerns or state facts (again, infrequent as these occurrences may be). I'm sure that alarm bells go off when a non-partisan source (Annenberg School? Isn't that one of those Marxist elite Ivy League foundations? ) is named, but why not...check the facts?
I'm not saying you have biases and I do not. Everyone does. I'm saying why not look at the information presented by factcheck.org and then make an assessment.
Can any of you answer these question:
In all of the critiques presented by factcheck.org, exactly how many times did their researchers get things wrong? What is their track record of presenting "the facts?" |
I actually did not read any of the links Melani posted and was instead referring to my own suspicions about factcheck.org based on some things I read on their website. I have read information on websites that was favorable to Democrats, yet the sites did not give me the uneasy feeling of bias. I have read information on websites that was unfavorable to Republicans, yet the sites did not give me the uneasy feeling of bias. There's a big difference between stating facts and debunking falsehoods and cheerleading.
Pretty much everything I read on factcheck.org (admittedly, not a whole lot as I was turned off after three different "fact checks") smacked of bias toward Obama and against McCain. Unless Obama is a saint and McCain is the devil, I felt that what I was reading could not possibly have been unbiased. Because all I had to go on was my perception, I said nothing. Finding out that others perceived it, too, I said "Ditto".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DChapman
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 1466 }
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 17:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| OTHER wrote: | Pretty much everything I read on factcheck.org (admittedly, not a whole lot as I was turned off after three different "fact checks") smacked of bias toward Obama and against McCain. Unless Obama is a saint and McCain is the devil, I felt that what I was reading could not possibly have been unbiased. Because all I had to go on was my perception, I said nothing. Finding out that others perceived it, too, I said "Ditto".  |
Precisely my deduction. Heck, some people would think that the NYT would be the ultimate source in checking facts!!! I know people who think this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTHER
Moderator-at-Large
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
{Posts: 935 }
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed 24 Sep 2008 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| DChapman wrote: | | OTHER wrote: | | Pretty much everything I read on factcheck.org (admittedly, not a whole lot as I was turned off after three different "fact checks") smacked of bias toward Obama and against McCain. Unless Obama is a saint and McCain is the devil, I felt that what I was reading could not possibly have been unbiased. Because all I had to go on was my perception, I said nothing. Finding out that others perceived it, too, I said "Ditto". |
Precisely my deduction. Heck, some people would think that the NYT would be the ultimate source in checking facts!!! I know people who think this. |
This is why I check my facts using, ummm, FACTS! If anyone is unsure what kind of President McCain or Obama would make, they can look at their Senate voting records using the link I posted in this thread for "fact checking". Actions speak louder than words and raw data has little room for perceived bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Sep 2008 17:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| DChapman wrote: | I was not about to make sure posters check their information with "factcheck.org". This is the same as citing a "study" of some sort to back up information. Now this all pertains to political advocacy. I think this strategy is analogous to silence/censorship of ideas and opinions, or it would at least make it harder to express opinions and/or information, particuarly if it's controversial. "factcheck.org" certainly is not the arbitor or the benchmark of all known facts in the political relm. I do not think any organization is. There are many other sources information. I may agree more with some, less than with others. It really all boils down to what I have been saying over and over and over again....opinions.
I am not suggesting we do not verify any information, we should. But I do not want to be the "school teacher" or rather the "forum police" in that, "did you verify this with factcheck.org??", or "do you have a study to prove this??".
Studies are great, don't get me wrong, as I am sure I will reference factcheck.org. But they are not what there is all to this.
Even in science, and the medical field, it's the reason why we go and get a second opinion or perhaps more, isn't it??? |
I invite you to re-read my original post, which was a suggestion to generate a list of sources that can be relied upon for fact-based analysis or information. Political spin is the order of the day but one can still find fact-based, non-partisan information out there.
It should be harder to express opinions that are bogus on a site like this. Standards invite posters to step their game up, and I believe people learn more in the end. It doesn't make for a great echo chamber for a particular point-of-view, and I for one think that is a good thing.
These sites should not be used to confirm whether one's opinion of a candidate or his/her record is simply right or wrong. That's like setting rules as a site about whether chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream. There are organizations that go out of their way to sift through the spin and present facts that have been verified and have a good reputation for quality. At least then an opinion of a candidate could be formed using higher-quality information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
