![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[Something I posted to Blue Mass Group this morning]
Politifact and FactCheck.org can be very useful if you actually read what they write, and use your knowledge, in context, to add to your understanding of the facts surrounding what candidates say. But I've found their top line true vs. false judgments to be puzzling or even comical in the way they seem to ignore the substance and intent of the utterances they're rating.
Sometimes it's as if a candidate were to tell a midwest audience "I spoke in Boston yesterday," and one of these factcheck orgnizations rated it a lie, explaining "she had an event in Cambridge, MA, yesterday, but never set foot in the nearby city of Boston."
( Here's an example of what I mean, from last night's debate )
So, do make heavy use of Politifact and FactCheck.org to understand the facts behind what candidates say. But don't be misled by their ratings or take them at face value; read, analyze, and come to your own conclusions.
Politifact and FactCheck.org can be very useful if you actually read what they write, and use your knowledge, in context, to add to your understanding of the facts surrounding what candidates say. But I've found their top line true vs. false judgments to be puzzling or even comical in the way they seem to ignore the substance and intent of the utterances they're rating.
Sometimes it's as if a candidate were to tell a midwest audience "I spoke in Boston yesterday," and one of these factcheck orgnizations rated it a lie, explaining "she had an event in Cambridge, MA, yesterday, but never set foot in the nearby city of Boston."
( Here's an example of what I mean, from last night's debate )
So, do make heavy use of Politifact and FactCheck.org to understand the facts behind what candidates say. But don't be misled by their ratings or take them at face value; read, analyze, and come to your own conclusions.