George Soros Funds Global ‘Fact Checking’ Empire

They aren't sentence fragments. I was using cArlson's court case as a well publicized example, your reference and criticism only prove your lack of a valid argument.

There ARE many fact checkers that will argue that with you. Go ahead and guess but, you're proving you really don't believe your own bullshit.

No fact checking try's to expose propaganda, read the words I wrote and you won't come off quite so naive.

I'm sure you find yourself cleaver; but you aren't not a bit.

 

There are people that try to be unbiased but, yes nothing and noone is perfect.

 

Wikipeida, for one, disagrees with you.

"Fact-checking is the process of verifying factual information, in order to promote the veracity and correctness of reporting."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-checking

 

You know one of the major ones is nothing but a guy in his basement right? What was his college major again marketing or something?

 

Perhaps you can provide an actual example of such.

 

nobody cares about your obsession with Carlson.

That's adorable if there is number one fan but it doesn't matter.

So? I rejected their authority as fact checkers. A journalist doesn't need to call themselves fact checkers if they had credibility.

no a journalist calling themselves a fact checker is propaganda. If they had credibility they wouldn't have to use that moniker.

They use that moniker only to Dupe people gullible enough to believe it.

Oh sick burn. Lol

 

IF you'd ever been to college you'd know that people often work outside of their major. AND that a college education's first, most important, goal is teaching HOW to learn.

 

Yeah those are called scientists. And they go through quite a lot to be unbiased it's never a journalist.

 

So college is for people to incompetent to know how to learn?

 

Wow, just wow...

 

It is not about who, but about facts and what supports then to be facts.

 

Lol Wikipedia? You know if you don't like what it says you can just change it right

No surprise Wikipedia would say something this profoundly stupid. I bet it was so-called "fact checkers" aka journalists with no credibility that made it say that.

There is no such thing as a fact checker. The fact that you found a very biased source that agrees with your conspiracy theory does not lend any Credence to your claims.

 

It's okay believe people when they tell you they're honest. Phone scammers got to make a living somehow.

 

Goodbye, I have a wall to beat my head on if I want a headache.

 

You might technique is not to fall for an obvious scam.

You know those people that call you and say they're with Windows computers and they want to talk to you about a problem your computer at hang up on them they're not really with Windows computers

 

Snopes, and the propaganda against it?

 

Fit throwing because I don't agree with you doesn't gain you any credibility

 

Snopes tried to discredit some other site? How, when?

 

Who is it that owns Snopes. The owner of salon.com?

So he bought Snopes to create a source for his media lies.

And people bought it hook line and sinker I admire the scam.

 

It has nothing to do with disagreeing, but all with moronic statements about whether FedEx is owned by the government, etc.
Credibility? When was the last time you believed someone that did not share the partisan crap you are spewing?

 

If you are unable to see the clear political agenda in the bias at play then no amount of explaining is going to help it for you because your confirmation bias is going to prevent you from thinking about it critically and logically.

That is exactly what the so-called fact checkers are preying upon.

 

That is my point though.

It's not about whether or not you accept Snopes, it's about the fact that there isn't one fact checker that anyone accepts. A fact checker is useless if it isn't accepted by the vast majority of people. It doesn't matter if it's accurate, when a significant number of people don't find it credible.

Because everything is for sale, any fact checker is subject to corruptibility or at least the appearance of it. I don't know how anyone could create a fact checker that actually makes a difference.

 

Yea, your assertions are so much more convincing than the explanations of fact checkers in general.
Can you substantiate your claims with anything?

 

To paraphrase Pope Benedict, 'truth is the truth whether one person, no person or every person believes it.'