Tag: fact checkers

Report: Fact Checker Group Received $2.4M in US Government Funds Amid Fact-Checking Controversy

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is one of the organizations that received US taxpayer money over the last 12 years – most of it during the Biden administration and during about six months leading up to the former president’s election.

The Media Research Center (MRC) said it discovered this by searching the USASpending.gov site, which showed Poynter received the majority of funds from the Small Business Administration ($1.67 million), followed by the US Agency for Global Media and the State Department with $423,781, and $367,435.

The total amount the government gave Poynter in obligations from 2013 until this year is reported to be at least $2.4 million.

The problem with this “arrangement” is not simply irresponsible spending of public money, but the nature of the Poynter Institute.

Since 2015, it has been running the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), certifying and supporting more than 170 fact-checking outfits around the world with training, resources, and organizing of events.

Throughout the former administration’s time in power, conservatives and others engaging in “disfavored” speech online accused these third-party groups of bias that led to censorship.

Keep reading

Microsoft Drops USAID-Funded NewsGuard After Ted Cruz Starts Digging

Microsoft has dropped NewsGuard, a left-wing fact-checking organization they partnered with that has helped the advertising industry justify blacklists for independent conservative media sites such as ZeroHedge.

The move came after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) began investigating Microsoft for funding the online “media literacy” censorship tool created by NewsGuard to help guide “learners of all ages through the overwhelming landscape of online news and information.”

Now we come to find out that NewsGuard was funded by USAID…

Keep reading

Inept ‘Fact Check’ by Science Feedback Shines Further Light on U.K. Met Office’s Junk and Fabricated Temperature Measurements

After a year of damaging revelations about the state of the Met Office’s temperature measuring network, the Green Blob-funded ‘fact-checker’ Science Feedback has sprung to the defense of the state-funded U.K. weather service. It has published a long ‘fact check’ seeking to exonerate practices that have recently come to light including the locating of stations with huge heat corrupted ‘uncertainties’ and the publication of invented data from 103 non-existent sites. Inept is a word that springs to mind. At one point, Science Feedback justifies the estimation of data at the non-existent stations by referring to the hastily changed Met Office explanation for station/location long-term averages. The original and now deleted Met Office webpage referenced station names and provided single location coordinates including one improbable siting next to the sea on Dover beach. This would appear to be a new low in the world of so-called fact-checking – designating copy as ‘misleading’ based on an explanation changed after the article was published.

The first Daily Sceptic article reporting on the existence of 103 non-existent stations can be read here. The second appeared last month here and detailed the unannounced web changes and the obvious cover-up intended to deflect criticism from the invented station data.

Under the verdict “misleading” Science Feedback claims that the average data going back 60 years for stations is not “fabricated” but estimated using “well-correlated related neighbouring stations”. This is said to be a scientific method that is published in peer-reviewed literature. The Met Office discloses it has “relatively few” stations with 30-year data from which long-term averages can be calculated. The distinction between estimated and fabricated is moot. A pundit calling the winner of a sports match before it has taken place is an estimation of the result, and the opinion is no less a fabrication or invention however distinguished the pundit and however well-regarded any peers signalling agreement might be.

Keep reading

EU Officials Pressure Meta and X to Enforce Censorship: Threats Linked to “Fact-Checkers” and Disinformation Investigations

This week’s statement by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and the realization that Meta’s policy shift regarding free speech on the giant’s social platforms doesn’t necessarily end with the US – is clearly sending shivers down the spine of a particular political class in Europe.

The one that, at least currently, gets to do all the talking – and gets that talking reported as gospel by legacy media.

And so, officials in a number of EU countries as well as some members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are scrambling to respond to Meta’s announcement – in a way, it seems, simply as an emergency measure to protect their narrow political, rather than what may be their nations’ long term, greater interest.

The people’s interest, meanwhile, is always the same: being able to speak freely as the very first point of assurance, that we do indeed, live in a democratic way.

But – the bureaucracy obviously has a different agenda.

Meta, as the first of the true tech giants to “turn the free speech ship around” does appear to be following in the footsteps of what Twitter/X has already been doing for several years.

And Meta’s change in policy is, in the grand scheme of things, still minor – Meta is simply now dropping the notorious third-party “fact-checkers.”

But, a number of EU officials and representatives of various agencies are wasting no time making themselves and their priorities known. And free speech, by way of welcoming less online censorship, does not come across as any priority.

Instead, they are warning Meta against abandoning the services of the “Censorship Central” – aka, “fact-checkers” – while at the same time looking to “energetically” pursue the existing investigation against X.

German Federal Network Agency head Klaus Muller is one of those appearing to be trying to stem the free speech tide, all the way to threatening to impose “sanctions” against Meta – should the company decide to extend its new, freedom-respecting policies to Europeans, after Americans start enjoying this privilege first.

Keep reading

The Lie of the Year Was Joe Biden’s Decline

About last year: PolitiFact, the independent fact-checking website run by the Poynter Institute, bestowed another odious distinction on President-elect Donald Trump. The organization dubbed a statement uttered by Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance the “Lie of the Year.”

PolitiFact has christened a Lie of the Year every year since 2009, and in only two of those years did statements made by Democrats earn the top prize. In 2011, PolitiFact slammed Democrats for claiming that Republicans would vote to end Medicare, and in 2013, the organization concluded that President Barack Obama’s solemn promise—”If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”—was plainly untrue. But in every other year, PolitiFact has singled out right-leaning purveyors of mistruths.

This year is no different. In 2024, PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year is the claim by Trump that Haitian migrants in an Ohio town were “eating people’s pets.”

“With a brazen disregard for facts, Donald Trump and his running mate repeatedly peddled a created story that in Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants were eating pet dogs and cats,” observes the organization.

The Republican ticket’s disregard for the facts in this case was indeed brazen. It was completely untrue that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pet dogs and cats. What happened was that various concerns about migrants supposedly hunting birds in public parks in Springfield, Ohio, got lumped together with an unrelated story of someone killing a pet cat in a completely different town. It’s a textbook example of why you shouldn’t automatically believe everything you see on social media. Trump and Vance did real harm here, and it’s absolutely fair to call them out for smearing the immigrant population of Springfield, Ohio.

But was this really the Lie of the Year?

Keep reading

NewsGuard Criticizes FCC’s Brendan Carr for Questioning Its Role in Alleged “Censorship Cartel”

NewsGuard, a company that provides a rating system for sites that can then facilitate flagging “misinformation,” is reported to have in the past been recommended to its members by the now disbanded Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) – as they allegedly banded together to demonetize social platforms and some news sites.

In November, member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Brendan Carr – who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to head the agency – sent a letter to major tech companies, asking for information about their work with NewsGuard.

The company, set up in 2018, is now accusing Carr of potentially violating the First Amendment by posing these questions, and claims that its work “does not involve censorship.”

However, that can be seen as a technicality, given that its browser add-ons that rate sites for “credibility” provide a tool for those who do end up carrying out censorship, which was the focus of Carr’s interest in the role of NewsGuard in the broader “censorship cartel.”

NewsGuard responded to Carr’s letter with its own in early December, stating the company was “surprised” to learn about the commissioner’s inquiries from the media.

Keep reading

President Trump Named TIME Magazine Person of the Year, They Refuse to Use His Iconic Image, and Slap Him with a Fake Fact-Check

President Donald Trump was named TIME Magazine Person of the Year on Thursday morning.

TIME Magazine refused to use the iconic image of President Trump facing the assassin’s bullet.

That would be obvious and too honest for the TIME staff.

TIME also couldn’t help themselves and fake fact-checked President Trump on the link between vaccines and Autism.

TIME says without hesitation that there is no link. They got this from Big Pharma.
Millions of Americans today would disagree.

Keep reading

Reuters Fact Checks Babylon Bee Article Stating ‘Allahu Akbar’ Has Replaced ‘Cheerio Mate’ As UK’s Favoured Farewell

Reuters is at it again with their team of ‘fact checkers’. They’re targeting The Babylon Bee, a satirical website, over an article that states the most favoured farewell  in the UK, ‘cheerio mate’ has been replaced with ‘Allahu Akbar.’

The humorous satire piece states, “A recent poll conducted by the University of Oxford just revealed that ‘Allahu Akbar’ has officially replaced ‘Cheerio, mate!’ as the most popular greeting in the UK,” adding that experts called the results of the “survey” a “flippin’ landslide, old bean.”

Kyle Mann, the Editor-in-Chief of the Babylon Bee, shared the lunacy on X, noting that “Reuters fact-checkers reached out for comment on our Babylon Bee story about ‘Allahu Akbar’ replacing ‘Cheerio Mate’ in the UK. I tried to help them out.”Mann then shared screenshots of the ridiculous message he was sent by Reuters 

Keep reading

Joe Rogan EXPLODES on NYT’s Crazy “Fact-Check”

Joe Rogan ERUPTS on The New York Times for “fack-checking” RFK Jr. on toxic food ingredients while simultaneously proving him right.

“That made my brain hurt just reading it.”

The “fact-check” in question all started when The New York Times claimed RFK Jr. was “wrong” about differences in Froot Loops’ ingredients between Canada and the United States.

However, their own reporting admitted that the U.S. version contains harmful chemicals like Red Dye 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1, and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), while the Canadian version uses “natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots.”

“So they’re literally saying he was wrong, but he was right,” Rogan scoffed. “That is the f—king dangerous chemicals banned in Canada that we’re trying to get rid of in America!”

Rogan continued to question what possible motivation The New York Times could have to “fact-check” RFK Jr.’s efforts to remove toxic ingredients from the food supply.

“Like, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to remove all leftover credibility? Are you trying to k*ll it all?” Rogan asked. “Are you secretly working for the Chinese? Like, what are you doing?”

Rogan’s guest, Jimmy Corsetti, concluded, “It’s probably backed by Monsanto or something.”

Keep reading

Losing Their Grip: Why Anti-“Misinformation” Crusaders Are Mourning the End of Control

In the brave new world of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public (CIP), it seems like “informed” is synonymous with “watched.” Birthed to combat the wildfires of online “misinformation,” CIP and its partners – including the defunct Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the short-lived Virality Project – thought they might have been celebrated defenders of truth. Instead, they became poster children for what happens when watchdogs get a little too cozy with power, diving into an experiment that teetered between public good and Orwellian oversight.

Election Integrity Partnership: A Marriage of “Good Intentions” and Government Influence

The Election Integrity Partnership, a coalition that included CIP as a key player, kicked off its operations with a noble-sounding mission: to shield our fragile electoral systems from the scourge of fake news. For the discerning reader, the term “integrity” in their name may raise eyebrows; it’s reminiscent of government programs cloaked in the language of virtue, their real work a little murkier. Partnering with government entities and social media giants like Facebook and then-Twitter, EIP set out to identify and “mitigate” misleading content related to elections. In other words, they assumed the job of selectively filtering out the lies, or as critics would say, the truths that didn’t toe the right political line.

For a while, EIP was in its element, functioning as a digital triage, purging the internet of what they deemed harmful content. But what started as “informational integrity” quickly became a federal hall monitor, policing citizens’ Facebook posts and Twitter threads with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Conservatives, in particular, saw this as more of a censorship scheme than a public service. Their view? EIP wasn’t there to inform – it was there to enforce.

Keep reading