#Fact checking

[godisarepublican]

PBS -- Mouthpiece of the D.C. establishment & globalist agenda -- is claiming to "Fact Check" and "Debunk" the claims regarding Tim Walz and the assassin. But....

<Quote> unsubstantiated theories that the suspect was a left-wing extremist who targeted the Democratic-aligned leaders for voting against party lines, and did so with the blessing of the state’s top Democrat, Gov. Tim Walz.

NOBODY HAS BEEN SAYING THAT! What we are saying, what we are pointing out is that Walz appointed the man to a government committee! Walz did! He really appointed the man! So, gaslighting the public as always, PBS is pretending to "Fact Check" a claim nobody ever made, avoiding the truth!

One Democratic state rep and their spouse were killed. In another shooting a Democratic state rep and their spouse were critically wounded.

[saywhat-politics]

This article originally appeared on PolitiFact.

Hours after the shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses, prominent conservative influencers spun unsubstantiated theories that the suspect was a left-wing extremist who targeted the Democratic-aligned leaders for voting against party lines, and did so with the blessing of the state’s top Democrat, Gov. Tim Walz.

Authorities soon identified the shooting suspect as 57-year-old Vance Luther Boelter of Green Isle, Minn. And conservative influencers, including Benny Johnson, Rogan O’Handley and Mike Cernovich pounced — surfacing what they floated as an incriminating connection between Boelter and the governor.

Walz, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, reappointed Boelter in 2019 to a state board focused on Minnesota’s workforce. But we found no evidence that Walz and Boelter were closely acquainted nor any evidence that Walz was in any way linked to the shootings, which he described as an “unspeakable tragedy” and “targeted political violence.”

A spokesperson for Walz said the governor’s office appoints thousands of people of all political affiliations to legislature-created unpaid, external boards and commissions.

This is a developing situation and Boelter had not been apprehended or charged in connection with the attacks as of Sunday morning.

[destielmemenews]

PolitiFact

[fairuzfan]

The thing with news sources and deciding what's trustworthy and what's not is that when you see criticism of Aljazeera (which to be clear is not a great news source about anything other than Palestine) is that they completely neglect to mention that each regional section of Al-Jazeera has different people in charge of it, different contributors, different sources.

By all means, analyze your sources and understand what information you're getting but to say outright that ALL of what AlJazeera reports EVER is wrong is inherently meant to discredit Palestinian journalists in a way that no other journalist who is not Palestinian and NOT directly experiencing the war in Gaza has been discredited. Surprisingly (not really but), a lot of Palestinians in Gaza are employed by AlJazeera because it's difficult for them to find employment elsewhere.

And again, I do not love AlJazeera. I think they do plenty of faulty journalism and reporting and I actively avoid them for most news sources. But RIGHT NOW with everything going on in Gaza, they're probably one of the most trustworthy ones because of their first hand accounts and willingness to publish Palestinian voices, which many, MANY news stations refuse to do. I especially encourage the Arabic version of AlJazeera!

Like Haartz has like... 4 Palestinians on their editorial team max, and they have EVEN LESS people on the ground in Gaza whereas we have dozens of reporters from Gaza on Al-Jazeera, many of which have died. The way to fact check your news is you find how many times they link factual evidence (like videos of experiences, primary accounts, primary quotes) and compare it with circumstance of publishing.

Here are some ways to fact check and questions to ask, even when looking at Al Jazeera:

Is this a first hand account? If not, does it name a person who experienced this first hand?

If they cite/name a person who experienced it first hand, are they a trustworthy person? What are their ties to the situation? Why would they report this, have they reported situations like this in the past?

What would the person reporting gain from reporting this? A Palestinian with an Instagram post about their life in Gaza has much less to gain than an Israeli soldier publishing their experience in Gaza, for example.

In the first hand account, are there actions or evidence that is corroborated? IE: There was a video of an Israeli soldier abducting a blonde Palestinian, and there was a Human Rights Org that reported child abductions from evidence gather by an on the ground reporter. There is less of a chance that this is false, therefore.

If you don't see other news sources reporting this (ie, you don't see CNN/NYT/BBC/Fox/any other western-led media outlet) then ask: Why would they not report it? Does that mean it's false? Maybe not. Many Euro-american sources spend MONTHS before they talk about an issue (think: Washington post article "questioning" the evidence of Hamas in Al-Shifaa hospital more than a month after the raid happened)

Defining "Trustworthy":

What is their history on reporting events? Are they someone who is well known in whatever community they represent?

Think: Ghassan Abu-Sitta, a world renowned doctor. When he reports something with his name attached, he is putting his entire reputation on the line. Therefore, it is more likely he is telling the truth.

Are they someone who has any real, structural power over the situation? Maha Hussaini, for example, cannot change her circumstances because a ceasefire relies on other people separate from her, a journalist. Therefore, she has less of a reason to lie about things happening to her.

For the news source: what are their ties to the situation? CNN, for example, has stated they have their content reviewed by the IDF. Wael Al-Dahdouh, before he was evacuated, was providing first hand accounts of situation, meaning its difficult for him to fake anything or misrepresent.

What else has this person/news source reported? What are their political leanings — not just left/right, but what are their general stances on a variety of issues?

How many people who are part of the community impacted are part of reporting on this (IE: How many Palestinian POVs are shared, how many Israeli POVs are shared, what are the POVs of the people shared in general?).

Can someone I personally trust vouch for this person? If not, can I ask someone I trust to look over this person/agency and tell me their opinion?

There's for sure more I'm forgetting but these are some ways I personally check my facts and information as a quick rundown. And I see this issue of not knowing how to fact check happen ALL OVER the place, on both sides. So I really, highly encourage everyone to engage with sources more honestly!

You'll make mistakes, everyone does! I do as well! But try to be vigilant about these things so we can ensure that we're spreading accurate information and try to correct information when possible! There's no 100% unbiased source so I encourage you to compare/contrast information and your understandings of the world to fully comprehend the situation!

Please use these questions when checking ANY news source, even Al-Jazeera!

[creature-wizard]

is checking facts by chatgpt smart? i once asked chatgpt about the hair color in the image and asked the same question two times and chatgpt said two different answers lol

Never, ever, ever use ChatGPT or any LMM for fact checking! All large language models are highly prone to generating misinformation (here's a recent example!), because they're basically just fancy autocomplete.

If you need to fact check, use reliable fact checking websites (like PolitiFact, AP News, FactCheck.org), go to actual experts, check primary sources, things like that. To learn more, I recommend this site:

[louxosenjoyables]

[incognitopolls]

There are a lot of consistently repeated "facts" around tumblr that fall somewhere in this gradient—some of which are only corrected by actually crunching numbers, reading scientific papers, etc. Falling for misrepresented data isn't anyone’s fault, but it does mean that some things that "everyone knows" are straight up incorrect, because the source was written by someone who didn't understand what they were reporting on, or the subject was twisted to suit a narrative (for personal reasons, monetary gain, etc).

Meanwhile, SOME claims just don't have a real source at all.

Do you check sources before you repeat a factoid or spread a post?

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[reasonsforhope]

Seeing a few notes/getting a few asks about issues with Kat Abughazaleh in response to my previous post. Does anyone have any actual sources on those?

Because I tried to look into it, and I didn't find corroboration of anything except that she's running in a different district than where she lives (which is, though not ideal, something politicians do quite often)

The only thing I found when looking up "controversy" involving her was actually that SHE has been getting sexual assault and death threats (mostly for bashing Fox News)

[reading-writing-revolution]

Fact-Checking the Narrative

Here's a thought. Who cares what anyone thinks about the fairness of fact-checking? Who cares? That's not a story. Everyone knows the story of fact-checking One side thinks the truth matters, even when it's not pretty. One side doesn't care what's true as long as it benefits them. Think about that. That's the story, and that's the story that should be told a thousand times.

The story is about Trump and the Republican Party and Fox News, TruthSocial and MAGA and how their entire existence now is based on lying to the public in order to get power.

It's disinformation, sure, but really, it's lying. It's falsehoods. It's misleading. It's blah fucking blah. It's fucking lying people. It's a few lies, then a bunch of lies, then lying as a way of life, then lying so much and so egregiously that it changes the course of a nation, and eventually lying to the point that it gets millions of people killed.

We saw the lie during the 2020 campaign and the attempted overthrow of the government of the United States of America. Before that we saw the lie that led to a million Americans dying from Covid. And let's don't forget about all the lies from 2016 to 2020 and from 2020 to 2024, and all the lies that everyone is already hearing now, all of it supported by people who have no interest in serving the people. They are happy to lie to get what they want, even if you die.

Who cares what either side thinks about fact-checking. We already know. And we already know what's true. Focus on that. Say what's true, and use plain, simple language (thank you, George Carlin) to say it. It's lying, and all that lying is going to get a lot of people hurt if we're not going to just say it out loud and say it every fucking time it happens.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Logic Exercise

Claim: Victorian socialites often had full sleeve tattoos or chest pieces.

Things to consider:

Would Tattooed Ladies have been as popular a sideshow draw if upper-class, taste-making women had tattoos?

If the tattoos were hidden by clothing as this claim may further state- long sleeves and high necks, what about the most common style of low-necked, short-sleeved eveningwear of the period? Socialites go to many formal events, and while high necks and long sleeves were acceptable for evening, surely many upper-class women avoiding more standard revealing formalwear would have changed the trend or at least warranted notice in fashion publications.

Is the article making this claim accompanied by unsourced photos of women with tattoos in the Victorian era? Should I reverse-image-search them to make sure they aren't...just spitballing here...photos of aforementioned Tattooed Ladies in circuses, divorced from their context?

Does the article cite a newspaper but no letters, diaries, memoirs, or other sources traceable to a specific, named person without conflicts of interest? Were Victorian newspapers known for their credibility and fact-checking?

And most critically, am I believing this just because I want to and ignoring compelling evidence that the whole notion falls apart under the slightest bit of historical understanding or logic?

[hexpositive]

Hex Positive, Ep. 055 - Fact-Checking In Witchcraft Spaces with Daylina Miller

Now available on your favorite listening app!

Our quest to sharpen those critical thinking skills returns with a lesson from none other than Daylina Miller, NPR journalist, LGBTQ+ activist, and CritWitchCon veteran. We chat about fact-checking in witchcraft spaces, red flags to watch out for, how to vet resources, and where to go to find good information in a world full of AI, SEO, and an endless parade of tiktoks and memes.

(Technical issues in this episode led to some crackling and distortion during parts of the audio. It’s all still audible, just letting the listener know in case of sensory or auditory processing issues.)

Make sure you check out more tips from Daylina on their substack: DaylinaMiller.substack.com.

Portfolio: http://www.daylinamiller.com SASS Witchcraft Zines: daylinamiller.itch.io Instagram: @witchyjournalist & @DaylinaMiller Bluesky: @witchyjournalist.bksy.social & @DaylinaMiller.itch.io Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WitchyJournalistTheLightOfDay tumblr: @witchyphilosophe

Visit the Critical Thinking Witch Collective! CritWitchCon 2025 is September 26-28. Follow the socials for event updates and registration links!

Visit the Willow Wings Witch Shop on Shopify and check out this month’s featured items and Upcoming Events. Make sure you also visit the Redbubble page for even more cool merch!

Check my ⁠⁠Wordpress⁠⁠ for full show notes, as well as show notes for past episodes and information on upcoming events. You can find me as @BreeNicGarran on Instagram and WordPress, or as @breelandwalker on tumblr. For more information on how to support the show and get access to early releases and extra content, visit my ⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠.

Proud member of the ⁠⁠Nerd and Tie Podcast Network⁠⁠.

MUSIC CREDITS

Intro & Outro – “Spellbound” & “Miri’s Magic Dance” Host-Read Ad – “Danse Macabre” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

[tomorrowusa]

Zuck joins Musk in the fetid MAGA swamp.

[saywhat-politics]

[godisarepublican]

The Deep State: Stolen FEMA & Social Security money!

Don't you just love how the claim was "Fact Checked" and proven false... like how Hunter Biden's laptop was "Fact Checked" and proven to be Russian disinformation!

[sunshine304]

Signal Boost for Writers: Research & Fact-checking comm on Dreamwidth

There used to be a great Livejournal community called "Little Details" that helped all kinds of fiction writers (fanfiction, original works, DMs etc.) with their research and fact-checking.

That comm no longer exists, but it has now opened again on Dreamwidth!

It's also possible to ask a question anonymously, the moderator has made an extra post for that; it's explained in the rules and guidelines post at the top of the page.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis received plaudits from their peers for their efforts moderating the debate earlier this month between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Many journalists praised ABC’s decision to forcefully rebut a tiny fraction of Trump's false claims, which provided “a model… for real-time fact-checking of the candidates that we have not glimpsed in previous debates,” as New York Times reporter Michael M. Grynbaum put it. But CBS News has decided that moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan will not follow that model for Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance. The network said that “the onus will be on Vance and Walz to point out misstatements by the other, and that ‘the moderators will facilitate those opportunities’ during rebuttal time,” The Associated Press reported Friday. 

In other words, if a candidate offers an obvious and easily debunked falsehood, the moderators will presumably turn to their opponent and say some version of, “Your response?” This amounts to “basically off-loading one of your journalistic responsibilities onto the candidates themselves,” as a critic put it to the AP. The CBS decision to renounce moderator fact checks will leave the national debate audience all the poorer. For instance, it will turn an inevitable and easily anticipated lie from Vance that Harris allowed thousands of migrant murderers to run rampant into a he-said/he-said conflict. And the plausible explanations for why CBS is telegraphing its unwillingness to do so bode ill for the state of the news media.

[...]

Why is CBS doing this?

There are two explanations for why CBS has decided not to follow ABC’s model and have its moderators fact-check the debate, and both are dispiriting. One is that CBS simply does not believe it is the network’s job to separate truth from fiction during high-profile, heavily viewed political events. Under this interpretation, while ABC News showed that such fact-checking can be done well, and that it adds to the debate rather than subtracts from it, CBS is simply opposed to doing that. The other is that CBS has been scared off of fact-checking by the right’s furious response to ABC. Right-wing pundits melted down in real time, castigating the ABC moderators and denouncing their network. And Trump himself repeatedly lashed out at the network in the days following the debate, even threatening to use federal regulatory power to retaliate against it. By contrast, Trump praised the CNN moderators, who had adopted a far more passive style, following his June debate with President Joe Biden. Perhaps CBS brass have decided they’d rather not risk angering Trump and have him take a hammer to the network if he returns to the White House, or perhaps they simply want to avoid the hassle that comes with such complaints. Either way, it means authoritarian threats have proved effective in compelling the media to change behavior. That is a dire incentive structure for the press.

Sounds like CBS moderators are caving into the right-wing bullying campaign against fact-checking lies being told at the debate stage, particularly from JD Vance.