https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/who-fact-checks-the-fact-checkers-research/

“‘Fact-checking’ fact checkers: A data-driven approach,” a 22-page October research article from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, examined practices of U.S. fact-checking organizations Snopes, PolitiFact and Logically, along with The Australian Associated Press.

Sian Lee, Aiping Xiong, Harseung Seo and Dongwon Lee of Penn State University’s College of Information Sciences and Technology did the peer-reviewed research.

The Penn State researchers found U.S. fact-checking spikes during major news events. In recent years, that was during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. Further, the researchers said, misinformation’s spread can mislead and harm people and society.

The researchers examined 11,639 fact-checking articles from Snopes and 10,710 from PolitiFact from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2022. They found Snopes checked more “real claims” — claims that rate true or mostly true — with 28.7% versus 11% for PolitiFact.

Looking widely, the researchers found high agreement when Snopes and PolitiFact probed the same information. Of 749 matching claims (examining the same information), 521 received identical ratings and 228 (30.4%) had diverging ratings. But, the researchers found nuances caused nearly all of these divergent verdicts — granularity of ratings (Snopes and PolitiFact scales differ slightly); differences in focus; differences in fact-checked information and the different timing of the fact-checks.

Adjusting for these systematic discrepancies, Penn State’s researchers found just one conflicting rating among the 749 matching claims.

ITT: what do we want the article to say?

If I were you, I would nuke it so users don’t see how poor of moderation this is receiving. Characterizing this as sea lioning when I’ve asked for the same evidence to support the same claim throughout this whole thread is a mark on you. You absolutely have given zero evidence towards your claim about what the article says, again, you have to CHANGE THE WORDS so it fits your point. That is lying. You are lying.

If only you could quote the article with a single iota of evidence to support your claim without changing the words (remember how you lied about the title? And everything that you claim it says?), then that would be productive. Instead, you draw conclusions from other sources that also don’t support the claims (imperative, right to respond), not even backing up the lies with quotes from the article.

This isn’t hard. If the article says something, you can quote it directly. If it doesn’t, I guess the alternative to facts is to lie.

Edit: also lol. “Subtext”… You meant to say, “things that don’t appear in the article” right?

Please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) the IMPERATIVE that you claim the article makes. As you claim: must, need. Because you are lying. And I am reporting your comments because you are lying about the article, saying that the original users claim about “without consequence” is somehow factually supported in the article itself.

Then, please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) how they believe Iran is not allowed to retaliate.

Both of these claims require sources, and since the claim is being made about the article itself, you should be able to quote it directly. Not twist words in the title to fit your personal opinion. Your inability to do that is all I need to know that your claims are without merit, and further regurgitation of the same personal opinions does not get you closer to the original point (which was talking about the source, btw).

And I’m disproving you with the ENTIRE article (but I’m right, not you). See why you need a citation from the article? As long as you’re using “your opinion™” and not the article to defend your point, the claim remains unproven. Burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim.

The authors of the article believe that the US and Israel must respond to Iran. That’s directly stated in the headline.

The headline: Iran is trying to create a new normal with its attack. Here’s how Israel and the US should respond.

Again, objectively false. You even correct yourself in the next paragraph:

To that end, they outline exactly how they believe Israel and the US should respond to Iran.

And then, crown jewel:

The reason they believe they must respond to Iran is because Iran is not allowed to defend itself.

Massive citation needed. If you are inferring from the article, please cite the relevant sections from the Atlantic council article (which you have so far been unable to do).

We know this because if they believed Iran WAS allowed to defend itself, they wouldn’t be asserting that the US and Israel need to respond.

I don’t “know” whatever it is you know, this is presupposition as there is nothing in the article stating a “need” which you again choose to insert over what the article claims. Further, your hot take on what would and wouldn’t happen would benefit from sources.

It’s what the ENTIRE article is saying.

I don’t think you read past the headline. I’ve also italicized words you inject on your own to form opinions you (unfoundedly) claim the article to have.

Reading comprehension… Look how far we’ve come from “without consequence” to this…

Edit: here is why your arguments fail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Burden of proof (philosophy)

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

You, and everyone else, have failed to bring forth evidence supporting the article’s position you claim (from the article itself, mind you), even going to such lengths as to change words in the title of all places. You should be ashamed of how poorly you argued this.

I’m understanding you are unable to back up your claim with factual information from the article. Even what you wrote requires editorialization to meet what you claim. The title makes no mention of rights to attack, and I can see you as well are unsuccessfully trying to defend the idea that the atlantic council holds these views, or that they’re even represented in the article.

Perhaps your point would find a better home with the user claiming they’re “batshit insane” since they both assume the exact same level of evidence.

As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.

If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.

Thank you for responding, however:

The US and Israel now feel Iran has no right to have responded to being attacked

Is not supported by the article. I noticed there is no quote from the article to support this about the US, Israel, or the Atlantic Council (which is the original claim, so no it is not sound). I find that is indicative that the claim lacks factual backing.

If you can cite the article (not broadly claim “context”) or anything else related to the Atlantic councils view as the above user said, that would lend itself to the claim (about the Atlantic council).

When it comes to Israel vs Palestinians, an organization dedicated to preserving the status quo is precisely who we should ignore.

You’re right, I can’t find anything supporting these statements.

Ftfy

For the other user, could you please cite in the article a statement that supports “without consequence”?

Citation needed

I’m assuming that’s a “no” because you can’t defend your claim with reliable sources.

Thank you for playing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[citation needed]

Wanna try the “padding” thing again?

In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.

The article in fact does elaborate on the wage increases, as I’ve quoted. The choice you make to decide that “meaningfulness” only involves narrow comparisons to housing prices is personal, as well to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite and uninformed view that wholly ignores those who benefit from increased wages (maybe to pay for increases in housing and other things?). Should wages be stagnant (as the other user tried to say) then I feel that would also be meaningful.

These are not statistics in a vacuum. That is grossly misinterpreting the article, that is very clear on it’s assertions. I would hope that you could find a reliable source that argues that wage increases are meaningless to drive that point home as hard as you two are attempting to do.

This is an (unsourced) opinion to say this is meaningless, and the article describes the meaningfulness of worker wage increases.

So you admit, contrary to what you said before, that wages aren’t stagnant. I see that in your opinion this is meaningless (I see no reliable sources included other than your personal opinion), however, the article, with data, directly refutes this notion that there is no meaningful movement in wages. Again, this is a motte and bailey argument.

Motte: vague assertions about the economy

Bailey: data in the article is “padded”

I don’t see anything informative or constructive about this conversation, especially considering you have abandoned defending your assertion that the numbers in the article are somehow “padded.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pad

2: to expand or increase especially with needless, misleading, or fraudulent matter

I won’t be continuing this discussion with you.

FTA:

Wages Are Rising, Good for Workers, But Not So Much as to Fuel Inflation

Average hourly earnings grew at a 4.1% annual rate in March, down from 4.5% at the start of the year. With consumer inflation currently 3.2% annually, that means workers are seeing gains in real income.

“The reduced pace of wage gains will alleviate some concerns of reignited inflation driven in part by the strong labor market,” said Nick Bunker, director, North American research at Indeed. “And while it has slowed, wage growth remains faster than the pace of inflation, insulating workers from undue harm.”

It does not seem like you’re addressing what the article says about the labor market at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

Also, for a third time, can you specifically, with reliable sources, identify the items you feel are “padded” in the article?

FTA:

A Rising Tide Is Lifting Many Boats

The surge in employment has benefited many groups who either have historically been left behind in the labor market or were disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

In the key age group of 25-54, the percentage of Blacks working reached 77.7% in 2023, surpassing its previous high in 1999, while for Hispanics that number hit 77.9%, beating the prior high of 77.4% in 2019.

Women, meanwhile, have recovered the ground they lost during the pandemic, when many were forced to leave the labor force to care for children at home as schools closed or taking care of elderly parents. They also suffered disproportionately as traditional sources of hiring for women in the leisure and hospitality and health care sectors closed down.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your comment about “the economy” as it relates to this article about the labor market. Are you suggesting that this article is misinformation? This is also meandering a bit, could you elaborate on what is “padded” in the article?