egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Couple of interesting articles that shed further light on Vance’s challenges to Europe over free speech.
I’ve noted a number of times how fact checkers are anything but disinterested truthseekers, but engaged in shaping perceptions to serve an agenda. Sure Trump (for example) lies like it’s going out of fashion, which is the sort of thing that gives them their pretext. But they themselves misrepresent the truth just as any politically partisan media do, through things like:
- selective focus, amounting almost to lying by omission. They focus relentlessly on attacking opposition to the establishment and providing nowhere near the the same scrutiny of the latter. This leads to a somewhat lopsided take at best, and running interference for said establishment at worst.
- spinning their own narratives. Fact checks shouldn’t look like articles, and they shouldn’t offer opinions, but they invariably do. A fact check is a test against the evidence of a measurable claim. Not a ‘Trump said x which was correct but but but opinion opinion opinion’ which then spins it to be bad anyway. That’s just op Ed, made worse when articles are structured so you need to get to the bottom (which journalists know people often don’t) to get the fact vs the spin
- and much worse, where we go through the looking glass and stating the facts gets labelled as disinformation, see below
Anyway, seems this is no accident. Like so many NGOs the Trump mob are going after, these guys are not just apparatus working on behalf of the establishment but substantially organised by them.
unherd.com
And here is an example of their machinery in full effect. This article by Unherd’s editor claims they get 2% to 6% of tne ad revenue their traffic should generate, because the fact checking complex has black listed them with advertisers.
Why? For things like hosting Kathleen Stock, who is a target for the complex, because she states the facts about gender
Stating facts about gender and women’s concerns is explicitly defined as disinformation by parts of the fact checking complex, who openly state that ‘disinformation’ is not simply about what is true but what they deem harmful.
unherd.com
The sheer brutality of the Republican assault on the deep state needs to be viewed against this backdrop. It’s not to excuse what they are doing in some cases, but they really are taking on what was the massed ranks of western progressive power, which dominates almost everything and has shaped reality for countless people. I suspect it’s also the real motive for Doge; not simply to cut spending but to identify and root out the networks where the state has been funding its army of grifters and propagandists.
I’ve noted a number of times how fact checkers are anything but disinterested truthseekers, but engaged in shaping perceptions to serve an agenda. Sure Trump (for example) lies like it’s going out of fashion, which is the sort of thing that gives them their pretext. But they themselves misrepresent the truth just as any politically partisan media do, through things like:
- selective focus, amounting almost to lying by omission. They focus relentlessly on attacking opposition to the establishment and providing nowhere near the the same scrutiny of the latter. This leads to a somewhat lopsided take at best, and running interference for said establishment at worst.
- spinning their own narratives. Fact checks shouldn’t look like articles, and they shouldn’t offer opinions, but they invariably do. A fact check is a test against the evidence of a measurable claim. Not a ‘Trump said x which was correct but but but opinion opinion opinion’ which then spins it to be bad anyway. That’s just op Ed, made worse when articles are structured so you need to get to the bottom (which journalists know people often don’t) to get the fact vs the spin
- and much worse, where we go through the looking glass and stating the facts gets labelled as disinformation, see below
Anyway, seems this is no accident. Like so many NGOs the Trump mob are going after, these guys are not just apparatus working on behalf of the establishment but substantially organised by them.
Britain's information war on America
unherd.com
And here is an example of their machinery in full effect. This article by Unherd’s editor claims they get 2% to 6% of tne ad revenue their traffic should generate, because the fact checking complex has black listed them with advertisers.
Why? For things like hosting Kathleen Stock, who is a target for the complex, because she states the facts about gender
Stating facts about gender and women’s concerns is explicitly defined as disinformation by parts of the fact checking complex, who openly state that ‘disinformation’ is not simply about what is true but what they deem harmful.
Inside the disinformation industry
unherd.com
The sheer brutality of the Republican assault on the deep state needs to be viewed against this backdrop. It’s not to excuse what they are doing in some cases, but they really are taking on what was the massed ranks of western progressive power, which dominates almost everything and has shaped reality for countless people. I suspect it’s also the real motive for Doge; not simply to cut spending but to identify and root out the networks where the state has been funding its army of grifters and propagandists.
