Wow, you just assume I didn’t read an article. Nothing in the opinion piece says anything of substance. It’s saying don’t bother because it’s a nuisance. If we don’t fact check, than lies are put out as fact. If Harris lied, call her out, if Trump lied, call him out. They are pesididential candidates, they should be held to higher standards than some random Youtuber.
If I say Australia landed on the moon last night, and no one checks the story out, are people to assume I told the truth? If No one checks out stories and opinions, than anything becomes a reality that just simply doesn’t exist.
The article is saying that fact checks don’t help, when the candidates rule lawyer their way into turning a false statement into a fact.
By any objective measure Kamala Harris’s comment about no US troops being in a war zone is false. Fact checkers say its true, because a bunch of Adderall addled lanyards have redefined the key words in this statement to make it technically true.
By any objective measure, a fact checker should be taking Kamala to task for repeating propaganda about October 7th. But no one will.
I don’t think this article objects to candidates being factual, as much as it points out that what our media does is not actually checking facts.
I didn’t assume anything, I pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument.
If I say Australia landed on the moon last night, and no one checks the story out, are people to assume I told the truth? If No one checks out stories and opinions, than anything becomes a reality that just simply doesn’t exist.
This is not what the article is talking about. It explicitly talks about using language to obscure facts. If you actually read the article and this was your takeaway from it, then it’s clear that you have incredibly poor reading comprehension.
Wow, you just assume I didn’t read an article. Nothing in the opinion piece says anything of substance. It’s saying don’t bother because it’s a nuisance. If we don’t fact check, than lies are put out as fact. If Harris lied, call her out, if Trump lied, call him out. They are pesididential candidates, they should be held to higher standards than some random Youtuber.
If I say Australia landed on the moon last night, and no one checks the story out, are people to assume I told the truth? If No one checks out stories and opinions, than anything becomes a reality that just simply doesn’t exist.
The article is saying that fact checks don’t help, when the candidates rule lawyer their way into turning a false statement into a fact.
By any objective measure Kamala Harris’s comment about no US troops being in a war zone is false. Fact checkers say its true, because a bunch of Adderall addled lanyards have redefined the key words in this statement to make it technically true.
By any objective measure, a fact checker should be taking Kamala to task for repeating propaganda about October 7th. But no one will.
I don’t think this article objects to candidates being factual, as much as it points out that what our media does is not actually checking facts.
I didn’t assume anything, I pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument.
This is not what the article is talking about. It explicitly talks about using language to obscure facts. If you actually read the article and this was your takeaway from it, then it’s clear that you have incredibly poor reading comprehension.