Politifact COVID Fact Checker - ZERO medical experience

[Stoic]

Not having any medical credentials doesn't seem to stop anyone else on social media from letting everyone know what they think, including on TWEB. But yeah if they are going to hire an official fact checker, he should have some credentials in the field he is fact checking. That's just common sense.

I would prefer that a fact-checker be a journalist; someone who can go find the truth, and report it. (And provide sources, in case I want to check it out myself.)

[Darth Executor]

I would prefer that a fact-checker be a journalist; someone who can go find the truth, and report it. (And provide sources, in case I want to check it out myself.)

That doesn't work very well for specialized topics where specialized knowledge is required to even understand what is happening in the first place.

I would prefer journalists covering science have credentials in both.

[Cow Poke]

I would prefer that a fact-checker be a journalist;

Journalists are so rare these days - most seem to be more "commentators" and "explainers" than simply journalists.

someone who can go find the truth, and report it. (And provide sources, in case I want to check it out myself.)

Yeah, I wish our "talking heads" were actual journalists of that type.

[RumTumTugger]

NPR in the US seems to be loosely similar to what I'm thinking of, in that it's a government-created entity that's generally independent of the government. It just needs a TV version.

Have you even listened to NPR? it is full of nutcases. If you actually listen to it and are endorsing it you are so far left there is no-one to the left of you

[Cow Poke]

Have you even listened to NPR? it is full of nutcases. If you actually listen to it and are endorsing it you are so far left there is no-one to the left of you

I've listened to it, and the one thing I do enjoy is there's no shouting over one another and no emotional screeds --- I stopped listening when they fired Juan Williams, but have tuned in again since then.

[Sparko]

I would prefer that a fact-checker be a journalist; someone who can go find the truth, and report it. (And provide sources, in case I want to check it out myself.)

But without any expertise in the field, he has no way of know what he finds is the truth or just something that fits with what he already believes is true. There is no guarantee the expert would be any less biased but at least he would be putting his reputation in the field on the line with his rulings and would probably try to be unbiased and correct as much as he can.

[Cow Poke]

But without any expertise in the field, he has no way of know what he finds is the truth or just something that fits with what he already believes is true. There is no guarantee the expert would be any less biased but at least he would be putting his reputation in the field on the line with his rulings and would probably try to be unbiased and correct as much as he can.

Yeah, because confirmation bias is so hard to block --- you can always manage to find sources that agree with your own belief. If I want a second opinion on a Doctor's advice, the last place I would go would be to a journalist.

[seanD]

Not having any medical credentials doesn't seem to stop anyone else on social media from letting everyone know what they think, including on TWEB. But yeah if they are going to hire an official fact checker, he should have some credentials in the field he is fact checking. That's just common sense.

And no establishment source propagates the idea that you'll get to the bottom of facts from social media either, unlike they do with "fact checkers" like Politifacts.

[Mountain Man]

And no establishment source propagates the idea that you'll get to the bottom of facts from social media either, unlike they do with "fact checkers" like Politifacts.

Indeed. The media aggressively promotes the idea that their "fact checkers" are the final word on whether or not something is true or false, and it doesn't seem to bother them in the least how often they get things blatantly wrong.

[Cow Poke]

Indeed. The media aggressively promotes the idea that their "fact checkers" are the final word on whether or not something is true or false, and it doesn't seem to bother them in the least how often they get things blatantly wrong.

We have certainly seen how things "fact checked" as wrong a year ago are now absolutely true.

[Stoic]

That doesn't work very well for specialized topics where specialized knowledge is required to even understand what is happening in the first place.

Misinformation on social media is generally pretty blatant. I haven't seen a fact-check where specialized knowledge would be required to understand the explanation of an expert.

I would prefer journalists covering science have credentials in both.

Understood.

[seanD]

Indeed. The media aggressively promotes the idea that their "fact checkers" are the final word on whether or not something is true or false, and it doesn't seem to bother them in the least how often they get things blatantly wrong.

I treat them about the same as I treat a source like wiki. They might have general facts (of which I have little confidence and would have to cross reference with other sources) but are extremely politically bias and would be the last place I'd source info to learn about a subject in depth.

[NorrinRadd]

We have certainly seen how things "fact checked" as wrong a year ago are now absolutely true.

There's a somewhat interesting video over on YouTube that shows Dr. Campbell morphing over the course of about two years from staunchly pro-vax, pro-approved-narrative to about as skeptical as he can be without being deplatformed.

[Mountain Man]

Misinformation on social media is generally pretty blatant. I haven't seen a fact-check where specialized knowledge would be required to understand the explanation of an expert.

Except "fact checkers" are not without bias and will often choose to give greater weight to those "experts" who tell them what they want to hear. It's ultimately no more objective than any other editorial content you get from the media even though it's promoted as some hallowed enterprise whose declarations we must unquestioningly accept with due reverence.

[Stoic]

Except "fact checkers" are not without bias and will often choose to give greater weight to those "experts" who tell them what they want to hear. It's ultimately no more objective than any other editorial content you get from the media even though it's promoted as some hallowed enterprise whose declarations we must unquestioningly accept with due reverence.

That's an argument that a fact-checker should be unbiased, not that he should have specialized knowledge of the subject of the fact-check.