The Arbiters of Truth or Purveyors of Fake News? - Google 'Fact Check' and Snopes.com
This post was inspired by a recent contribution titled, How Steemit can Save Millions of Lives by @Mobbs.
I agree with much of what the author presented in the article about being skeptical of pseudo-science, as well as how the Steemit platform forces us to interact with others with differing opinions. Also, I discovered that @mobbs is a very talented writer, whom I'm now following.
Yet, I felt I had to leave a rather lengthy comment in response to this piece as it touched upon a subject that I feel very strongly about: Fact Checking and Fake News. This line, in particular compelled me to respond;
Snopes is essentially the best and in my opinion most important website on the internet and we should all have it bookmarked.
I couldn't disagree more.
It is not my intention to attack the author, what I want to convey in this post is the danger in blindly trusting fact checking sources such as:
- Snopes.com
- Google Fact Check
- WaPo Fact Checking
- Facebook Fact Check
I have written about this in previous posts but at the time received little attention, this time around I hope it reaches more of you.
https://steemit.com/censorship/@v4vapid/google-fact-check-corporate-news-is-truth
by @v4vapid
Arbiters of Truth
Following the US presidential elections there was a lot of talk concerning the pervasiveness of 'fake news' circulating through social media and how it may have played a role in handing the US presidential election to Donald Trump. At the same time as the dangers of 'fake news' began to permeate the mainstream publications, another narrative began to pick up momentum;
"Russian Hackers"
Until last week, this story was incessantly forced upon the American public day-after-day, week-after-week ad nauseam.
Earlier this week 3 top CNN staffers were forced to resign after being caught on video admitting that the “Russian Hacking” is nothing but a fabrication. Similarly, the NY Times was also forced to make a retraction regarding the ‘fake news’ they’ve been disseminating.
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.
On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.
The relevance of this story should be obvious.
THIS IS FAKE NEWS!!
This blatant and preposterous narrative that was concocted by US IC and political strategists, then paraded relentlessly by the msm was finally exposed for what it was: a complete fabrication.
Google 'Fact Check'
The significance of the "Russian Hacking" lie is that, without evidence, this story was treated as if it were factual. The institutions that pushed this narrative the hardest were CNN and the NY Times both of which are prominent contributors to Google's fact checking service which debuted earlier this year.
Anyone can volunteer to be one, says Google, cautioning that “Only publishers that are algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of information will qualify for inclusion.”
Currently, the growing list of 115 organizations includes the likes of CNN, The Washington Post, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times, to name a few.
So now, not only will the corporate media be able to deem which content is acceptable and which isn’t, it’ll also be able — again, the link will be right there in the snippet — to guide readers toward their own view on the matter.
Fact Check: A rating system for the corporate media and by the media corporations.
Accordingly, these 'authoritative' sources, including CNN, WaPo and the NY Times, are qualified to determine what is true and what is false.
Both the NY Times and CNN have a history of being purveyors of 'fake news'. CNN reporters faked being in war zones and the NY Times pushed the WMD PR campaign that ultimately saw the US invade Iraq in 2003.
https://steemit.com/censorship/@v4vapid/the-real-fake-news
by @v4vapid
Additionally, fact checking organizations such as; Snopes.com, Politifact, and Factcheck.org contribute to Google's service.
To critical thinkers, this so called fact checking community is farcical.
Ultimately, the dominant corporate narratives prevail and fact checking organizations help to justify the dominant view.
Testing Google 'Fact Check' and Snopes.com
One of the more interesting, and peculiar, aspects of Google 'Fact Check' and Snopes.com is that the services are quite selective about what they attempt to prove or disprove. Of course, it's impossible to "Fact Check" everything and there are probably very few organizations that possibly have the resources, or the will, to do so. However, we can learn a great deal from what is and is not 'fact checked' but equally, how the subject is addressed.
Let's look at a few contemporary examples using Google 'Fact Check' and Snopes.com:
- Russian Hacking - N/A
- Monsanto Round Up and Cancer – False
- Seth Rich Assassination – Pants on Fire
- Syrian Chemical Attacks - N/A
- White Helmets are Terrorists - Unproven
Russian Hacking
.png)
When you enter a search for 'Russian Hacking' a number of articles appear but strangely they're mostly indirectly associated to the story. There is no attempt by Snopes to claim it as - FACT (because it is total bullshit and verifiable).
What's interesting is the timing of the latest piece, dated June 27th, is the same day news broke of the three CNN reporters resignations and a day before the NY Times retraction.
Monsanto's Round Up Causes Cancer
.png)
In a decisive declaration, Snopes.com states that the claim that Monsanto's Roundup causes cancer is: False.
An open and shut case. Move along people.
I guess there's no arguing with Snopes on this one....right? Not so fast.
The WHO has determined that the Roundup herbicide probably causes cancer.
http://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/03/monsanto-herbicide-cause-cancer/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/21/roundup-cancer-who-glyphosate-
From the Guardian:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – WHO’s cancer agency – said that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide made by agriculture company Monsanto, was “classified as probably carcinogenic to humans”.
It also said there was “limited evidence” that glyphosate was carcinogenic in humans for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, said scientific data did not support the conclusions and called on WHO to hold an urgent meeting to explain the findings. “We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe,” said Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs.
From Mother Jones:
The authors cited three studies that suggest occupational glyphosate exposure (e.g., for farm workers) causes “increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides.” They also point to both animal and human studies suggesting that the chemical, both in isolation and in the mix used in the fields by farmers, “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro”; and another one finding “increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage” in residents of several farm communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations.
Currently, Monsanto and its PR machine are working furiously to counter the scientific findings of the WHO.
I guess Snopes somehow missed this one.
Seth Rich Assassination
The claim that Seth RIch did not provide Wikileaks with DNC emails and voter information has yet to be determined. Anyone who has looked into the murder of Seth Rich will know that the circumstances surrounding his death are very suspicious for a number of reasons, but we don't have the time to get into the details here.
Wikileaks does not disclose their sources, so without additional evidence it is impossible to determine. Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has come extremely close in interviews to identifying Seth Rich as a source but stops short of naming him.
Though the official story of Seth Rich's murder contends that it was a botched robbery, though nothing was taken from him, law enforcement officials still confiscated his laptop from his residence. If this was just a simple robbery gone wrong, why was his laptop confiscated?
Syrian Chemical Attack False Flag
.png)
In 2013 and 2017, the United States accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against their own people. It has been proven that these claims are false.
But when you conduct a search for either 'Syrian chemical attack' or 'Syrian chemical false flag' there is no fact checking done on these crucial claims.
Sy Hersh recently decimated the latest 2017 claim that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons against their own people. The US launched a Tomahawk missile attack against targets in Syria in response.
https://steemit.com/news/@v4vapid/sy-hersh-explodes-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-narrative-part-1
by @v4vapid
White Helmets
Unproven, is the determination reached by Snopes regarding the White Helmets and their ties to terrorist organizations Al Nustra and Al Queda. Granted, at the moment these are allegations but there exists considerable, mounting and damning evidence that the White Helmets are closely associated with terrorist groups.
https://steemit.com/propaganda/@v4vapid/usaid-funds-white-helmets-aka-al-qaeda-with-a-facelift
https://steemit.com/propaganda/@v4vapid/propaganda-and-syria-sculpting-western-minds
by @v4vapid
The Effects of Fake News
The effects of fake news are that even once a story has been proven to be false, many people go on believing the original story as they remember it. After the intake of the original story, it can be encoded in our minds and where it remains strongly lodged and difficult to erase even after a retraction is made.
.png)
The original fake newsstory of the "Russian Hacking" or the "Syrian Gas Attack" is reinforced through relentless repetition in the 24/7 news cycle and has much stronger lasting power and influence than the truth.
Critical Thinking
I will not tell you what media is truth and what is fake.
I will suggest to you that alternative media organizations that are independently funded, funded by the viewer and subscriber donations and not beholden to corporate advertising dollars would certainly seem to be less biased in their reporting. Therefore, they are in a better position to maintain a more critical view of important events.
But institutions that have been proven to have lied and deceived the public do not get to dictate what is real and what is fake. Fabricated corporate news cannot point the finger at others and claim fake news.
Personally, I still read corporate media as well as dozens of other sources when researching contentious issues.
Authority does not mean truth.
There's more to say on the subject and on Snopes.com, but I will have to pick up the story in an upcoming post... thanks for reading!
Images morenews.pk, kalovskihostechnews, CNN.com
Thanks for this excellent post v4vapid, and for including my research on the White Helmets terrorist ruse. I conducted some research on Snopes own research into the White Helmets in Syria by following the official Wikipedia link to a Snopes cited article and found the author of that piece. Her name is Bethania Palma Markus. Then I went to her open Facebook page and revealed her for all the world to see. The images I ascertained show her to be, at a minimum, a highly dubious character and quite an odd source for 'reporting' on Syria. In fact, she appears quite strange and, in my opinion, somewhat unstable personality wise. Here's the link to that post:
https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/03/04/examining-the-bizarre-facebook-page-of-the-snopes-fact-checker-of-the-white-helmets-terrorist-ruse-in-syria/
The images at the link reveal her to have obvious bias and Facebook friends who are members of the FSA (Free Syrian Army) which is comprised of a number of terrorist groups.
As far as the Snopes organization goes, there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the owners who had quite an ugly divorce that revolved around prostitutes and drunk orgies. Some sites that reveal that story are within this other post I put together on Facebook censorship. The sooner this all comes out, the better, as the American public is being steered by the Deep State and corrupt MSM to trust this source which is really nothing but a bunch of chips-on-their-shoulders crazies with a one-sided political agenda. Their bias is plain to see.
https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/04/30/big-brother-watching-huge-compendium-of-screenshots-highlight-facebook-and-other-forms-of-censorship-in-new-age-of-internet-surveillance-and-control/
Well, what can I say? The feeling's mutual. You produce excellent content as well and I want your work to get noticed around here so I'm upvoting / resteeming whenever i can!
Funny that you mentioned the Snopes divorce as I read a lot about it researching this post but thought it deserved a separate post all on its own. However, if you've already written about this, why don't you make a post about it here on steemit? love to hear your take on it.
If you own ALL the mainstream media, and you want to make sure everyone believes what you want them to believe, it's only common sense that you would own some "independent" "fact checking" sites.
I got into a big argument with a good buddy over Snopes. He believes everything they write. :(
Great point! It reminds me of how oil companies give themselves environmental awards that appear to be independent entities but often have close ties and funding from the oil industry.
I believe the term is "green-washing".
I have eschewed corporate media since 9/11. I think Snopes was once an honest site, that has since been corrupted.
The fake news narrative is a page from Saul Alinsky, in which you accuse your opponents of doing what you are in fact doing.
The fact checking by wholly owned media is merely appeal to authority, which, while it is an obvious ploy undertaken by mendacious propagandists, will nonetheless blind millions to facts which are of dire import.
Glad they can't do that to Steemit! Keep calm and Steem on!
An excellent post and very welcome response to @mobbs post which I read and commented on myself. Like yourself, I have no intention of telling others what to believe or who to believe and I felt that @mobbs was trying to influence the opinions of others with his post as well as trying to get a reaction from some of the users here. Thanks for a really well written and well presented post @v4vapid!
Hope your day is going well!
This is very informative. As a journalist (not for MSM), I find many of these "fake news checkers" quite worrisome. During the 2016 election, I reported on election fraud concerns involving the DNC, and I wonder if my stories would have been flagged if these "features" existed back then, even though my stories were quite true. I'm following you now to keep up with what you share!
Honestly, though, with the insane level of sway over the public that all these outlets have, including the ones more on the Right, don't you suppose those theories about living in a post-truth world are kinda right?
Well said! We have to fact-check the fact-checkers--lol! I wouldn't trust anything from Google, FB or Snopes
Well done post You deserve for getting Upvote from me. I appreciate on it and like it so much . Waiting for your latest post. Keep your good work and steeming on. Let's walk to my blog. I have a latest post. Your upvote is high motivation for me. Almost all Steemians do their best on this site. Keep steeming and earning.
This comment has received a 0.04 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
Considering the wikileaks has NEVER had to retract a story in its entire journalistic history and that they work not for profit but truth, I would say wikileaks is an arbitrator of truth. Unlike wikileaks, google works for pure profit and control. We should be deeply suspicious of google
Yet even when that is pointed out, the lemmings say something about how they heard Assange works for Russia and gave them the info.
It must be hard to be Assange honestly, to have all that data and all your sources you have to keep secret. He could easily on any day just say "yes Seth Rich was the leaker and here is proof with gmail id and email/server logs". But he can't because then nobody will leak to him and his organization any more. Man, it must be super frustrating. Glad he keeps going though.
There are likely no server logs, as the leaks were provided via thumb drive, iirc.
Snopes was caught editing it's page about Monsanto in lying. Snopes is just another convenient mind control device. http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/report-snopes-com-caught-heavily-editing-lying-about-monsanto-chemicals-in-our-food-supply/
I wrote a detailed response to the mobbs page on Steemit, demonstrating why the claims he and snopes made about chemotherapy are wrong and, in fact, the wrong paper was cieted by snopes. I spoke with the author from the Australian Royal college of Radiologists who confirmed to me directly that Chemotherapy's rate of efficacy is less than 3% based on his detailed study 14 years ago. No response of any substance was forthcoming from mobbs. I conclude that many people are just looking to read what confirms what they want to hear - confirmation bias.
I read your comment and upvoted it - while i was researching for this post i saw a few articles about Snopes covering for Monsanto. I don't know enough about this study and here I just presented some articles discussing glyphosate as a carcinogen. I'll have to read up on this one, thanks for the link too.
As for Snopes, i also believe they're a tool used to frame the public discourse and I do not trust their fact checking and cherry picked topics. That's not to say they're always wrong, but like many disinfo campaigns they mix some truth with falsehoods to muddy the waters.
Thanks for reading and commenting:)
I suggest watching the new documentary 'Unacknowledged' to get an overview of the extent to which the major media infrastructures are totally and deliberately infested and controlled by bought and paid for propaganda agents on behalf of those that seek to control pretty much everything on Earth.