#fact-checking

[dduane]

...Hard not to laugh.

(Via @WardrobeDoor over at the ex-Bird place)

[originalleftist]

Ran across a Deppie post on Reddit, claiming Amber Heard's Instagram account had followed JD Vance.

They were of course spinning wild conspiracy theories, claiming it was some plot by her to get to Musk, etc. The usual bullshit.

Still, the basic claim seemed easy enough to fact-check. I logged into Instagram, checked Heard's follow list, and... yup. Vice President Vance.

Well, that was disheartening, to say the least. If she turned out to be yet another white person who went full Nazi, it wouldn't change my opinion of the trial- even bad people have rights, and can be abused, and her OpEd flatly wasn't defamatory by any reasonable definition. But it would have forced me to lower my estimation of her as a person considerably, and stop supporting her work.

Still, it seemed odd- Despite her past relationship with Musk (before he became openly fascist), her politics has been mostly Left-leaning for years, particularly on feminism and LGBTQ rights as well as voting rights. Vance seemed an out-character choice for her to follow.

And then it occurred to me.

A few weeks back I saw a post reminding people to unfollow the official POTUS, VP accounts, etc, because those accounts changed hands after the election. I checked my Facebook, and sure enough, I was unwittingly following the Orange Felon.

Heard followed Vice President Harris on Instagram. It got some mean-spirited media coverage gossiping about Harris not following her back. Sure enough, the Harris account is gone from her follows list. So, assuming she was following the official VP account, it may simply be that Amber Heard hasn't updated her Instagram follows since before Inauguration Day (she posts about twice a year now).

Which feels like a weird thing to know about someone I've never met, but also kind of humanizing, for lack of a better word- the sort of simple mistake that any regular person could make (myself included).

Anyway, this is your reminder for the day that:

a) You should check your social media post-election to make sure you aren't accidentally following Nazis now.

b) Most of what people say about Amber Heard is probably bullshit.

c) It never hurts to dig a little deeper with your fact-checking before jumping to conclusions. I could have just read the Reddit post, or hell just checked her Instagram page, and impulsively denounced her as a turncoat and a Nazi. I probably would have, if it had been someone else I hadn't spent the last three years publicly supporting.

(It also is possible, of course, that she's suddenly decided to follow Vance (and no other notable MAGA figures) for whatever reason. Vance is the top of her follow list, which might suggest a recent follow, but I really don't know how that works if an account you were following before changed hands, and Instagram's algorithm for ranking follows is... obscure. Nor would I put it past Meta to tweak the algorithm to boost Regime accounts, given how hard they've been sucking the Regime's dick lately (try posting the Felon's mugshot to Facebook if you want to see this in action- every time I do, Facebook falsely labels it an AI-generated image.))

[alwaysbewoke]

[strangebiology]

Notes from the book fact-checking process

-Checking accuracy takes so much time. Like someone will say “this document has this” or “there is a study that says that” and I’ll spend forever confirming that (and sometimes it’s not really true so I have to find something else that is, and check that)

-Having an external fact-checker is expensive—it can be $10k to check a book! Advances run the gamut and could be $50k, $10k, or $0, so authors can’t always afford it. (There is only one publisher I recall who, I think, provides that service as part of their contract.)

-It’s really important to have one though. Luckily I got some great recommendations for fact checkers and my grant pays for mine, who has started working, and other grants do the same.

-I have asked ChatGPT to check a few facts, just to see if it could point me to where I should really confirm it, and to test AI’s fact-checking abilities. EVERY answer I got has been WILDLY WRONG. Oh my god.

-If you search FB for fact-checking groups it’s 100% groups for people who hate fact-checkers. (I poked around some public groups, and the content is mostly conservative memes with the odd "free- iPhone" scam.)

-There are a jillion ways that a study can be done wrong, it can be out of date, the scientists could have interpreted data wrong, the press release could have been wrong, the journalist/writer could have misunderstood something, or the reader can misunderstand.

-I'm still a little worried about getting things wrong! Hopefully, my book will be...quite accurate? Pretty accurate?

Here's a great article on fact-checking in books, the costs and benefits, and an argument that it should be standard.

(PS. I'm still working on the Afterword and the wildlife chapter, and then I'll have to do the acknowledgments. Wordcount is 63,963, and I'm still guessing it will end up around 70k. I've started the fact-checking process by sending the FC'er some of the finished chapters and I'm sure that will be plenty of work too.)

[ancientroyalblood]

The Role of Research in Non-Fiction Writing

Research is the cornerstone of any well-written non-fiction work. Whether you’re writing a biography, a historical analysis, a scientific report, or even a personal essay, research grounds your writing in truth and credibility. Unlike fiction, which relies on the imagination, non-fiction demands accuracy, facts, and a deep understanding of the subject matter. In this post, we’ll explore the…

[chinesegal]

I've talked to Sacheen Littlefeather's sister Rozalind in PM, I reached out to her out of curiosity after reading about the controversy surrounding Keeler.

I won't make any claims on whether Littlefeather is indigenous or not, as a non-native that's not my place. But Rozalind has still made some heavy accusations against her-elder abuse against her parents and lying about aspects of her background.

Also, the claim that Rozalind denies being indigenous because of Keeler isn't true, the claim she originally said she was indigenous comes from statements taken out of context.

I saw a reblog of a post about Keeler with 2 links given as sources for "Sacheen's sister claimed she was indigenous before Keeler" and both are defunct. However, on twitter I saw a post with one of Rozalind's embedded posts where she states that her grand-mother Gertrude was of "spanish and yaqui descent". The OP says this confuses him because Rozalind has originally said she "isnt native at all".

However, acknowledging that she has a grandmother with "yaqui ancestry" doesnt mean identifying as native.

As for being "racist trump supporters" no sources were given for that. After looking into Roz twitter she seems to be right-leaning. I'm sure I dont agree with many of her political views, but that doesn't automatically make her accusations against Sacheen untrue, like the elder abuse.

I don't know whether I'm overstepping boundaries, but I still feel like letting the truth out.

[ultramaga]

CNN FORCED To Issue Correction After FALSELY Fact Checking Trump About T...

[princesssarcastia]

fact-checking sucks, btw. it takes so much time. when i saw this post about the tiktok ban, i was like, shit! god, they would do something like this, this is horrifying! and then i had that little niggling voice inside my head asking why i haven't heard about any of this before now. would the news media i've been following really not bring this up? it's true that the tiktok thing is the one most of their readers are concerned with, so maybe, but that seems really odd. maybe i should look into that.

so i click on the link in the original post and read through the bill. and i'm pretty sure the classification at the top of the page means this bill isn't the one that passed into law. but i read through it anyway, and it seems like the post got a few things wrong—i don't see anything about a secretary of communication? but maybe i'm not parsing the legalese correctly. and maybe they used text from this in the final version, like it changed titles in reconciliation but the substance is still there.

so then I start looking for news articles. all the news articles are just talking about the tiktok ban, as though there are no other impacts of this bill. could it be that there really are no other impacts? yeah! but could it also be that the media is just focusing on the part that their readership base is focusing on? slightly less likely, but also yeah. then I find the NPR article where it says that there are no legal consequences for individuals for circumventing the ban on their own. that directly contradicts part of what the original twitter thread said. seems almost conclusive, but i'm not totally sure yet, there's still some doubt.

(this right here is the point in the process where I think to check the timestamps on the post, btw. and THAT makes the doubt even smaller)

so i start googling to find the text of the bill that did pass. this takes several tries. actually, i have to find the name of the bill in the wikipedia article and then google the name of the bill and congress's website to get it. and then i navigate through the 1k page document it's a part of, because of course this was part of an omnibus bill. and that text seemingly has VERY LITTLE to do with what that twitter thread is mentioning. almost nothing, actually. they both mention the word tiktok but that's it.

and NOW i feel comfortable saying that twitter thread is unequivocally not true, and got some of the facts wrong. this whole process took me at least an hour and a half. and the whole reason I did it was because i'm familiar enough with the legislative process and the news media to know when something feels off, and furthermore, familiar enough with those things to then find the information.

anyone with an internet connection could do what i did! but thinking to do it, and having the time and the interest to do it, and knowing where to look and who to trust, that specific confluence of factors is rarer than anyone would like.

all this to say, fact-checking sucks. it's helpful, and we've just got to do it, but it's oftentimes a tedious time-suck, which is why most people (myself included a lot of the time) don't go through the whole process.

[talvin-muircastle]

No, Elon Musk is not dead.

There is a meme going around showing that Elon Musk passed away.

It's satire. That's it.

[alchemisoul]

[eric-sadahire]

Hi honey, how was your day at the gaslighting factory?

I've never worked there. Stop saying I work there.

[jbfly46]

https://www.skynews.com.au/business/media/the-fact-check-files-inside-the-secretive-and-lucrative-fact-checking-industry-behind-a-foreignfunded-bid-to-censor-voice-debate/news-story/31915e1eb03b029b86a2f03aac19338b

[grabyourpillow]

Because I can't help myself, here are the key points of the article disproving it:

The transfer of the mummy happened in 1976, not 1974

The fake-passport presents as a biometric passport, which are only delivered since 2008 in Egypt

The barcode on the fake-passport comes from the original blog article posted on the website heritagedaily.com. it's written underneath

This heritagedaily is a blog dedicated to paleontology and archeology that CLEARLY STATES THE FAKE PASSPORT IMAGE WAS CREATED TO ILLUSTRATE THE BLOG ARTICLE

The creator of the heritagedaily website confirmed to the fact-checking website linked above that he created it in 2018 and then republished it in 2020

Other versions are online, one more minimalistic, another in Arabic. All are false.

The mummy was received in France in a big show, with honors becoming of a sovereign. No mention of passport in any interview or article from that time.

The person in charge of documentary studies at the Egyptian antiquities Department of the Louvre Elisabeth David states that there is no fundament for the existence of a passport.

There is NO FRENCH LEGISLATION ACCORDING TO DECEASED HUMAN PEOPLE REQUIRE PASSPORTS

Mummies aren't even considered as "people" in case of a transport they are considered as "goods".

Elisabeth David cites a report from the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle (National Natural History Museum) issued in 1985 as possible reason for this confusion:

[Translation by me: "Obviously, for such a grand figure to leave Egypt, obtaining a "pass"(port) required reaching out to the highest authorities of both countries, after reaching a mutual agreement, after long and tedious negotiations."]

Okay so obviously I'm not a professional translator so I'm not exactly sure how it reads in English, but in french it's pretty clear that the person writing just uses the term "passport" as a metaphor for the long and tedious procedures required to get the mummy out of the country, just as for issuing a passport. She uses it so the sentence reads as "obtaining an okay [to pass through]".

(Anyone who's ever had to deal with the french administration will have similar feelings on such a matter.)

TLDR: THE WHOLE IMAGE WAS CREATED TO ILLUSTRATE A BLOG ARTICLE. THERE IS NO SUCH FRENCH LEGISLATION

Mostly English-speaking websites relay either the default faulty assertion, or the version according to which only the photo is fake but there was a passport, probably because they don't have to the original 1985 report that mentions this "passport" nor access to this fact-checking article that provides the full context. (The latter part of the sentence is a hypothesis by ME)

MISINFORMATION SPREADS FAST BUT FACT CHECKING TAKES HOURS

PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE

The original fact-checking article cites and links all relevant sources. This website is a trusted fact-checking website operating under strict guidelines. It is a foundation with no political, commercial, or ideological ties.

it’s the “date of birth: 1303 BC” for me...

[ancientroyalblood]

Writing Historical Fiction: Capturing the Past with Precision

Historical fiction, with its ability to transport readers to bygone eras, offers a captivating blend of storytelling and factual accuracy. As writers venture into recreating history, the challenge lies in capturing the essence of the past while weaving a compelling narrative. This guide aims to illuminate the intricate art of researching and crafting historically accurate fiction. Immersive…