47 Comments

The so-called 'fact checker': 'why yes hello sir if you could just do my job for me and go ahead and just debunk yourself that'd be great'.

Pro-tip to the factchecker: if you're finding it impossible to disprove, chances are it means that it is true.

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Excellent reply to the purported "fact checker", Norman!

The fundamental problem and most ironic thing, given they use "fact" in the description of themselves, is that they don't seem to know the meaning of the word "fact" or how a fact is established. They seem to conflate "claim" or "allegation" with fact, when they are entirely different things.

A claim or allegation is merely just that, nothing else. It may be true and it may be false. For it to be true it must be supported by and fully aligned with ALL the relevant facts (not just with a few cherry-picked facts whilst conveniently ignoring/ disregarding facts that are contrary to the claim).

These self-appointed "fact checkers" have tried to elevate themselves (in the eyes of the public that somehow take cognisance and have regard to what they say) to be of a higher authority with regard deciding what is the truth. People who are genuinely appointed into such elevated positions in society (e.g. judges and arbiters) must be independent, impartial and free from conflict. They must also have the necessary experience in order to make sound decisions on the matters they are considering. The fact-checkers do not meet any of this criteria.

To be an independent & impartial decision maker, you have to begin with an open mind (with no preconceived notions) and be prepared to consider all possibilities (not matter how unlikely they may be) then let all the relevant facts and evidence (which must be credible & reliable and, preferably, independently corroborated) lead to a conclusion. The fact-checkers do none of this.

The 2nd sentence of the email to Norman is revealing. It says " I am working to debunk online articles that claim...". So it is clear that he/she is already starting with the preconceived idea that the claim (they are reviewing) is false and their mission is to "debunk" it. This, itself, shows a bias that should not be exist with a purportedly "independent" decision-maker.

As Norman pointed out, their focus is fundamentally misplaced, as it should be upon those who originally made, not only unsubstantiated claims but also (as has been increasingly demonstrated), claims that were patently false. Instead, they accept these unsubstantiated/ false claims as the gospel truth, without question or enquiry. This completely contradicts & undermines what they claim they stand for (allegedly the truth) because if they were independent/ impartial, they apply as much rigour as they claim they do towards the claims they are trying to debunk.

Over the years, I have actually found the fact-checkers to be quite helpful. Whatever they claim to be a fact or the truth is a very good indication of what is most definitely not the truth!!

Expand full comment

I like the way the fact-checker tells you they're not actually checking any facts but simply finding ways of saying the facts are wrong. I particularly like the reliance on the bit from the ONS which says people should not make any assumptions or analysis about the data it provides because, unless it's to say nobody jabbed is dead, then it's a clear misuse of the data. You realise they will now print something along the lines of "anti-vaxxer, covid-denying tinfoil-hat wearing, right-wing fascist granny-killing professor of some made-up subject says the jabs are killing people when we have proved no jabbed people ever die"?

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

they should be called "time wasters", not fact checkers

Expand full comment

Now we know how they operate. They don't even do any donkey work themselves, just email professors for their take [the mistake they made here is they asked a "rogue" professor who is "off message" - seems they can't even do that little bit of due diligence in who they are asking] and then pass of it as their own work. I.e. its just "hot takes" from anyone who is willing to reply and confirm.

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023·edited Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Downright scurrilous of the Daily Mail to use that headline. Were the editorial staff paid by U No WHO?

Expand full comment

Love this. A spark of sanity in a mad world.

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Nice :-)

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

BOOM. Right on Dr Fenton. Love it! Thank you for your perserverance and insights.

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Well said sir!

Thank you..

Expand full comment
author

Love it.....

Expand full comment

BOOM! I like to imagine the fact checker blown over backward in his/her chair by such a message. Of course it won't change anything about their lying mendacious output because as you say, they are being paid to push it.

Expand full comment

Who knew that facts could be so entertaining when presented to the people who are trying to debunk them? Thanks for this Professor; you've brightened my day.

Expand full comment
Mar 3, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

Great title.

Expand full comment

Fact checker is like the ministry of truth in 1984.

They edit history to make a point.

It's even better when the headline says false, only for the bottom part of the article admitting that there's a rational concern.

And perhaps some of them are just really prisoners of their own fear that their government and experts lied to them.

(From https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/alleged-cia-involvement-in-jfk-assassination-goes-mainstream-so-now-what/ )

"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.

To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."

------

Expand full comment

Oops, big mistake, approached the wrong Prof, should have written to Prof Gates....very much looking forward to the response, although I will not hold my breath

Expand full comment