A fact check is a simple yes or no. If they go into ten paragraphs of them putting their own opinion on certain events, they are not fact checking, they are expressing their opinion.
It's ways the same. This is because they expect most people don't go below "false" to read the few paragraph, but if they get called out on it they'll say "oh but we did mention 183 arrests and that's not 200.. and we think only 190+ would qualify as nearly!"
This is exactly what engineered fake news are. Unlike some people that could claim they misspoke or made a mistake, they do not. They absolutely make fake checks on purpose
As far as I'm concerned, stretching the truth to that extent may as well be al ie. You're taking the original text out of context deliberately. That is not what journalism is about. That's propaganda.
Even in the most anal parsing of the facts, while 183 people weren't arrested for "deliberately starting fires" ... also InfoWars never said that, and everything that InfoWars reported is literally true.
Snopes' -- that makes it 'False'.
Absolute ??
Now, 'fact-masters', .. of the 40 yutes attested for starting fires, and the 24 yutes charged with deliberately starting fires -- what percentage of the mens-rea subset were Immigrant Muslim? ?
Snopes...has been strawmanning the truth for fkn years now. No matter the story, they exaggerate it, post in big letters: FALSE, then go on admit what everyone else was saying all along as if they were the ones who discovered it. Fucking shameless cunts.
Watch. You'll notice them do it as well, given enough time and attention.
I hate to defend Snopes but Infowars is being purposefully misleading or using bad verbiage to demonstrate their points in their headline. OP is being disingenuous with this information.
Snopes is debunking the "deliberate" claim by infowars while also using false implicature in the "claim" and using the "rating as false" to mislead the reader to think that "nearly 200 fires weren't started by man" (they were, just not all deliberate). Should have been labeled mixed to be more accurate.
If people don't read the actual origin they will be mislead on what the overall information means. Both are in the wrong on their assessments or verbiage claims.
Keep it basic. Definition of Deliberate: "done consciously and intentionally."
Snopes isn't wrong on the "deliberate" account but are wrong on the "false" claim and infowars is also wrong for using the term deliberate, should have kept it to "Nearly 200 People Arrested Across Australia For Starting Bushfires" would have been more accurate due to all of the information and snopes could have explained this.
I am with you Patriot. "Mixed" wasa more correct rating not False. That being said, Snope gave at least a little breakdown of what the arrests represent which is helpful. I wonder how many people read that far down?
Other questions which would be nice to explore: If 24 people were caught intentionally setting bushfires... how many are likely not caught? Of all the acres burned how many were likely intentionally set to cause devastation?
INFOWARS is shot and not real news. There controlled opposition and/or BLACK PROPAGANDA. Estate this every time I see them posted anywhere like they are a real news source. They're as real as pro wrestling.
Yes, run off from suburbs contains estrogenics and frogs are keystone species that are now growing 4 sets of legs and both sex characteristics. INFOWARS: they're turning the frogs gay and Soros will gut your children if you don't donate to me now! Also, Bill Clinton is a trannie and piloted LolitaExpress!!! Brbrbrbrbbbb! *Alex dances around with literal tin foil hat*
Alex trolled Cenk and that was great but mainly eclipses any issue he addresses and these things are too important to be treated as pro wrestling type fodder for sweaty, speed-fueled surrealist Alex Jones skits.
That's the issue though. I'd bet most people who use Snopes don't take the time to actually read either the article Snopes is critiquing, or the Snopes article itself. They'll just scroll down to the verdict.
You've hit upon rule number 1 of propaganda or keeping the truth hidden! Make the truth just complicated enough and enough people will be put off that the tipping point is lost.
And the tide recedes.
Until next time at least...
For instance:
Global pedos buying kids is crazy but direct enough to believe.
Having a restaurant where they congregate ...is a stretch.
Paying someone to shoot up a pizza parlor, and promise a shortened sentence 'due to mental health', in order to show the public how dangerous 'Russian' / non-Swamp approved conspiracy theories are and get them to stop looking and kill the rise of #Pizzagate, etc trending.... totally pops most people's kite string belief.
Yeah and that's my problem with Snopes as well, they don't give an inch to claims with truth mixed in behind it and will explicitly state something as false which is misleading. They argue the semantics in their claim and rating and bury the rest of the information at the bottom of the article that people don't read whether there is truth to it or not. The rating doesn't match the information at hand.
It's essentially lying by structure, top of the article and headline will state the claim and rating which tell their verdict and bury the information at the bottom, which as you state, most people don't read. If the verdict clearly conflicts with the information given, you know they aren't being 100% truthful.
This is what they do, they take a statement like "183 people were arrested for starting the fires", they find the somewhat incorrect version of that statement "183 people were arrested for deliberately starting fires", then they say that is false. Then they ignore the initial statement and say their job is done.
They do this over and over and over. It's total bullshit. They always debunk views that almost no one has. It's a strawman, don't buy it.
They are essentially claiming accidental fires as being within the realm of man made climate change..... Are the goal posts even in the stadium anymore??
They're turned upside down, so now instead of having to kick the balls between the two posts in order to make a goal, you can kick to either side of a single post.
And if you fuck that up, and aren't white male, someone will pick up your ball and force it to miss the post so you can be a champion player just like everyone else.
Snopes says it will be hiring a mass of fact checkers for the upcoming election. Who is behind these ten people who are pretending to be running a fact checking company?
I'd say that if your deliberate actions to further a hoax resulted in the or the potential for the extinction of some species on earth, your face should be plastered all over the world by now. You should be an enemy to the world on par with Soleimani. You should get life without parole and the enviro groups you coordinated with should be household names.
lol How many people do they think actually listen to Alex Jones? I know he's popular around here but I don't pay any attention to him. It's like they think hundreds of millions of people watch his show and spread what he says even though we know most social and news avenues are lefty-centric. Talk about boogey-men and conspiracy theories. Snopes is a joke. I'd listen to Alex before them.
Snopes says it was only 24 people...I guess 24 is not close to 200, maybe Snopes is rig.....
According to police, of the 183, another “53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban,”
Failing to comply means not agreeing with or consenting to a request or command. In this case a ban on fire, so that's 53 more people who deliberately didn't adhere to the rule. But I guess even 77 really isn't close to 200 either...maybe Snopes is kind of rig...
and an additional “47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.”
It's unlikely you accidentally discard a lighted cigarette. They deliberately did so. So that's another 47 added to the bunch. Now we're at 124.
They don't say the rest of the reasons, but I'm gonna bet a lot of them have some other reason that is still basically "deliberate", but jeez, the mental gymnastics leftists go through to claim a narrative.
Assuming it is actually 124 deliberate, maybe saying nearly 200 is a slight exaggeration. Probably would be better to say "Well over 100". But them claiming this is false for 124 of Nearly (so not actually) 200 is pretty fucking ridiculous.
It's would be misleading or half true, but most people won't take it that way. 24 of the nearly 200 people arrested for bushfire related crimes were arrested for deliberately setting them.
The real issue with these fact checkers is how they skew things to favor sides on technicalities because they know people just read the headline
I wonder what proof they offered that he even looked into it. Once when I was 4 I looked into being a firetruck but I can't possibly prove that. Maybe Snopes can lol.
Both but heroic and off limits because they are not conservatives. Keep in mind they are only trying to convince the morons who are already in the choir of a narrative.
Snopes, like all leftist propaganda outlets, is FAKE NEWS.
Well said. Snopes really is nothing but a propaganda outlet at this point. They are certainly not a fact checking site.
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
A fact check is a simple yes or no. If they go into ten paragraphs of them putting their own opinion on certain events, they are not fact checking, they are expressing their opinion.
Should be called Snopinion. Most of their trash is propagandistic bullshittery.
It's ways the same. This is because they expect most people don't go below "false" to read the few paragraph, but if they get called out on it they'll say "oh but we did mention 183 arrests and that's not 200.. and we think only 190+ would qualify as nearly!"
This is exactly what engineered fake news are. Unlike some people that could claim they misspoke or made a mistake, they do not. They absolutely make fake checks on purpose
As far as I'm concerned, stretching the truth to that extent may as well be al ie. You're taking the original text out of context deliberately. That is not what journalism is about. That's propaganda.
Even in the most anal parsing of the facts, while 183 people weren't arrested for "deliberately starting fires" ... also InfoWars never said that, and everything that InfoWars reported is literally true.
Snopes' -- that makes it 'False'.
Absolute ??
Now, 'fact-masters', .. of the 40 yutes attested for starting fires, and the 24 yutes charged with deliberately starting fires -- what percentage of the mens-rea subset were Immigrant Muslim? ?
But they did: https://archive.is/cG0TJ#selection-1067.0-1067.79
So snopes isn't wrong in that assessment.
Snopes...has been strawmanning the truth for fkn years now. No matter the story, they exaggerate it, post in big letters: FALSE, then go on admit what everyone else was saying all along as if they were the ones who discovered it. Fucking shameless cunts.
Watch. You'll notice them do it as well, given enough time and attention.
The left doesn't allow anyone to speak in generalities. "200 people! It was only 199! You're literally a liar!"
Rinse and fucking repeat.
CLAIM: Snopes is FAKE NEWS.
MOSTLY FALSE: Snopes is FAKE NEWS, but also Left-Wing Fantasy and Propaganda.
"We don't create the fake news, we're not reporting it, we're just endorsing it as true."
I hate to defend Snopes but Infowars is being purposefully misleading or using bad verbiage to demonstrate their points in their headline. OP is being disingenuous with this information.
Infowars' bad headline: https://archive.is/cG0TJ#selection-1067.0-1067.79
Snopes is debunking the "deliberate" claim by infowars while also using false implicature in the "claim" and using the "rating as false" to mislead the reader to think that "nearly 200 fires weren't started by man" (they were, just not all deliberate). Should have been labeled mixed to be more accurate.
If people don't read the actual origin they will be mislead on what the overall information means. Both are in the wrong on their assessments or verbiage claims.
Keep it basic. Definition of Deliberate: "done consciously and intentionally."
Snopes isn't wrong on the "deliberate" account but are wrong on the "false" claim and infowars is also wrong for using the term deliberate, should have kept it to "Nearly 200 People Arrested Across Australia For Starting Bushfires" would have been more accurate due to all of the information and snopes could have explained this.
I am with you Patriot. "Mixed" wasa more correct rating not False. That being said, Snope gave at least a little breakdown of what the arrests represent which is helpful. I wonder how many people read that far down?
Other questions which would be nice to explore: If 24 people were caught intentionally setting bushfires... how many are likely not caught? Of all the acres burned how many were likely intentionally set to cause devastation?
Answer: hundreds https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/dozens-of-firebugs-blamed-for-destructive-queensland-fires-20191220-p53m1i.html
Are you stupid, "nearly" is the operative word here and snopes either does not understand what that means or they are twisting the meaning!
INFOWARS is shot and not real news. There controlled opposition and/or BLACK PROPAGANDA. Estate this every time I see them posted anywhere like they are a real news source. They're as real as pro wrestling.
Yes, run off from suburbs contains estrogenics and frogs are keystone species that are now growing 4 sets of legs and both sex characteristics. INFOWARS: they're turning the frogs gay and Soros will gut your children if you don't donate to me now! Also, Bill Clinton is a trannie and piloted LolitaExpress!!! Brbrbrbrbbbb! *Alex dances around with literal tin foil hat*
Alex trolled Cenk and that was great but mainly eclipses any issue he addresses and these things are too important to be treated as pro wrestling type fodder for sweaty, speed-fueled surrealist Alex Jones skits.
That's the issue though. I'd bet most people who use Snopes don't take the time to actually read either the article Snopes is critiquing, or the Snopes article itself. They'll just scroll down to the verdict.
You've hit upon rule number 1 of propaganda or keeping the truth hidden! Make the truth just complicated enough and enough people will be put off that the tipping point is lost.
And the tide recedes.
Until next time at least...
For instance:
Global pedos buying kids is crazy but direct enough to believe.
Having a restaurant where they congregate ...is a stretch.
Paying someone to shoot up a pizza parlor, and promise a shortened sentence 'due to mental health', in order to show the public how dangerous 'Russian' / non-Swamp approved conspiracy theories are and get them to stop looking and kill the rise of #Pizzagate, etc trending.... totally pops most people's kite string belief.
Yeah and that's my problem with Snopes as well, they don't give an inch to claims with truth mixed in behind it and will explicitly state something as false which is misleading. They argue the semantics in their claim and rating and bury the rest of the information at the bottom of the article that people don't read whether there is truth to it or not. The rating doesn't match the information at hand.
It's essentially lying by structure, top of the article and headline will state the claim and rating which tell their verdict and bury the information at the bottom, which as you state, most people don't read. If the verdict clearly conflicts with the information given, you know they aren't being 100% truthful.
This is what they do, they take a statement like "183 people were arrested for starting the fires", they find the somewhat incorrect version of that statement "183 people were arrested for deliberately starting fires", then they say that is false. Then they ignore the initial statement and say their job is done.
They do this over and over and over. It's total bullshit. They always debunk views that almost no one has. It's a strawman, don't buy it.
Lmao did the cat write the article or the prostitute?
It was a collaborative effort
They are essentially claiming accidental fires as being within the realm of man made climate change..... Are the goal posts even in the stadium anymore??
Well... man is part of the climate. Everything is one. All humanity is one with everything and that one person is Bernie Sanders. /s
How absolutely dare you! You're destroying my forests, my future and my home! Oh...Trump didn't start them? HOW ABSOLUTELY DARE YOU for lying to me!
They're turned upside down, so now instead of having to kick the balls between the two posts in order to make a goal, you can kick to either side of a single post.
And if you fuck that up, and aren't white male, someone will pick up your ball and force it to miss the post so you can be a champion player just like everyone else.
Very fake news.
Snopes says it will be hiring a mass of fact checkers for the upcoming election. Who is behind these ten people who are pretending to be running a fact checking company?
We need 1000 pedes to apply to Snopes for fact-checking jobs.
Snopes is like Wikipedia- unreliable.
Will we ever see a composite image of those arrested for arson in Australia? I have a feeling it might look similar to the mass shooters.
I'd say that if your deliberate actions to further a hoax resulted in the or the potential for the extinction of some species on earth, your face should be plastered all over the world by now. You should be an enemy to the world on par with Soleimani. You should get life without parole and the enviro groups you coordinated with should be household names.
lol How many people do they think actually listen to Alex Jones? I know he's popular around here but I don't pay any attention to him. It's like they think hundreds of millions of people watch his show and spread what he says even though we know most social and news avenues are lefty-centric. Talk about boogey-men and conspiracy theories. Snopes is a joke. I'd listen to Alex before them.
If Snopes is saying it's a lie, we know it's true.
Snopes, redefining words as needed. "183 isn't nearly 200" i guess lol.
Arson is one of the most difficult crimes to try, because the evidence tends to burn up in flames. So I would assume they didn't catch everyone.
Snopes says it was only 24 people...I guess 24 is not close to 200, maybe Snopes is rig.....
Failing to comply means not agreeing with or consenting to a request or command. In this case a ban on fire, so that's 53 more people who deliberately didn't adhere to the rule. But I guess even 77 really isn't close to 200 either...maybe Snopes is kind of rig...
It's unlikely you accidentally discard a lighted cigarette. They deliberately did so. So that's another 47 added to the bunch. Now we're at 124.
They don't say the rest of the reasons, but I'm gonna bet a lot of them have some other reason that is still basically "deliberate", but jeez, the mental gymnastics leftists go through to claim a narrative.
Assuming it is actually 124 deliberate, maybe saying nearly 200 is a slight exaggeration. Probably would be better to say "Well over 100". But them claiming this is false for 124 of Nearly (so not actually) 200 is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Snopes is not a legitimate source. That's been demonstrated many times.
Snopes rating : half true
3rd paragraph in : "Someone in fact did do XYZ, but we think they didnt mean it that way"
Snopes only paid attention to the NSW region and ignored the article from Queensland (which is linked in the infowars article)
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/dozens-of-firebugs-blamed-for-destructive-queensland-fires-20191220-p53m1i.html
where it says in just their region alone there have been 103 cases of confirmed arson. Snopes cherry picked their data as they always do.
I did a fact check on Snopes and find it to be false. All of it, everytime.
ew ew ewwwwwwwwwwwwww I went to the Snopes website!!!!........FOREVER UNCLEAN!!!!
Why do they do this, just be good normal people and state the truth
Commie Phaggetts round DOWN, American Patriots round UP!
Who would you rather have?
Cocaine is a hell of a drug. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC5LaHUnQMA
It's would be misleading or half true, but most people won't take it that way. 24 of the nearly 200 people arrested for bushfire related crimes were arrested for deliberately setting them.
The real issue with these fact checkers is how they skew things to favor sides on technicalities because they know people just read the headline
"24 people have been charged with deliberately setting fires"
24 people plus the ones that were not caught.
This many could start a hell of a lot of fires
I wonder what proof they offered that he even looked into it. Once when I was 4 I looked into being a firetruck but I can't possibly prove that. Maybe Snopes can lol.
Both but heroic and off limits because they are not conservatives. Keep in mind they are only trying to convince the morons who are already in the choir of a narrative.
We could just say about Climate Change: “Some People Did Something.”
Lol, so stooooopid.
In Australia 183 rounds down to 0. That's why it's called "down under"