You may have read that Google plans to include “Fact Checks” of its news search results, much as Facebook has taken to doing with its news feeds. And like Facebook, Google is farming out the job to so-called “fact-checkers” including Politifact, Snopes and the Washington Post.
The left-leaning biases of these organizations is well documented, but let’s briefly review them. Politifact is essentially forced run lengthier explanations to justify the site’s disparate treatment of Left and Right, and treated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton quite differently, despite consistent polling showing most voters found them both dishonest and untrustworthy.
Most recently, Politifact retracted a 2014 article that found Obama Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s claim that “we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out” of Syria to be “Mostly True.” Politifact handed out that rating despite the fact that there were discrepancies in the accounting and some stockpile sites lacked even an agreement for inspection. It turns out that the assurances of Democrat politicians and global bureaucrats are assertions, not facts.
Snopes hires as fact-checkers alumni from various left-wing news sites like Raw Story. And they are not very transparent when asked about their practices. So it’s not surprising that the Snopes coverage of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal contained only a few fact checks, almost all of which reviewed claims other people made about it, rather than Clinton’s numerous and obvious false statements about it. Even The Guardian managed to fact-check Hillary.
As for the Washington Post, consider that the WaPo discontinued fact-checking during the first two years of the Obama administration, when Democrats also held large majorities in Congress. Fact-checking resumed at roughly the same time a GOP Congress regained control in 2011. The Washington Post sees itself as speaking truth to power…unless it’s untrammeled Democrat power.
Indeed, the Washington Post recently exercised no editorial control when Dana Milbank published a column based on claims about judicial filibusters less accurate than claims which previously had been awarded two and three Pinocchios by the WaPo fact-checker. This approach is fact-checking for thee, not me.
None of this is surprising because so-called “fact-checking” is not so much about establishing facts but imposing a particular Truth. And it is not about being restrained by their own Truth as it is about imposing it upon the Other.
While I do not agree with BuzzFeed’s EIC Ben Smith on everything, he is certainly correct to note (as Charlie Sykes has) that left-leaning Big Media is desperate to try to retain the “gatekeeping” power they enjoyed in the pre-internet age. They, with the help of complaining left-wingers, have managed to cajole some of the biggest players in the internet media cartel into helping them.
I suspect that trying to impose authority rather than earning it will merely perpetuate the cycle of distrust that has already brought the media to new lows.
PS: Consider subscribing to WHRPT in the sidebar (the posts come straight to your inbox; no muss no fuss). And following WHRPT on Twitter. Thanks for reading and sharing!