As you probably know, not long ago, a tweet by President Trump was “fact-checked” by Twitter. The company then recommended to its users that they re-consider the President’s statement. What did he tweet that was so questionable? He had asserted that massive voter fraud was probable if all voting was switched to mail-in ballots.
Twitter’s implication was clear: The President’s statement was inaccurate at best, or a lie at worst, but in any case, it wasn’t a “fact.” The chorus of Trump’s critics certainly seized on the opportunity presented here. Those so-called fact-checkers made it clear—it was a rock-solid FACT that there is NO evidence whatsoever, that voter fraud occurs with mail-in ballots.
Hmmm. Is that a fact? Just on its face, common sense would lead one to believe that that is a pretty bold assertion. No evidence, as in, not a single ballot, ever? In all the elections ever conducted in the United States, have mail-in ballots never been tampered with?
When I looked into the matter, guess what I discovered. I found that while there aren’t a lot of examples of mailed ballot voter fraud, there are some, and there are plenty of examples where the appearance of fraud is fairly clear. So much for the “no evidence” claim.
Then, guess what I did next—follow carefully now—I thought about it for a few minutes.
My 89-year-old mother lives with us. She hasn’t voted in the last several elections, even though she gets a ballot in the mail prior to each one. Now comes the part that the fact-checkers must find difficult to check. How hard would it be for me to simply fill out her ballot, sign (forge) her name, and send it off along with mine? Hey, just in my little household alone, I could easily increase the power of my vote by one hundred percent! That’s pretty awesome, don’t you think?
Around the same time, in our neighborhood, everyone received a complimentary copy of a newspaper called The Epoch Times. That same day, posts appeared on Nextdoor from many in our local community, either complaining or praising the newspaper. “This is right-wing propaganda,” some claimed, “why is this being ‘allowed’ by the post office?” It wasn’t long before someone researched the paper on a “fact check” site, proudly displaying their so-called research findings, that of course, confirmed the poster’s opinion that the paper was “right-wing propaganda.” As you might imagine, a lively discussion ensued.
What was my first reaction? How about checking the fact-checkers?
I did, and yep, as I suspected, it was right there in their legal disclaimer. To paraphrase, it explained that “The information provided was the ‘opinion’ of the site’s editors, and is in no way to be considered as verified, ‘accurate’ information.” In other words, they played it smart with a CYA statement so that they wouldn’t be found liable if someone acted based upon their so-called “fact-checked information.” They could be right, or… they could be wrong. No matter. By naming their site with the words “Fact Check” in the title, they were keenly aware that the typical American would go right there and cite them as arbiters of truth and affirmers of fact.
Having worked in media for a very long time, one thing I know without a doubt to be true: The pen is mightier than the sword. The power of both written and spoken words is immense. They create policy and can shape opinions; they can mobilize the masses and move people to act in ways both noble and ignoble. Anyone who has studied critical thinking or rhetoric understands this. The problem today, I suppose, is that, so far as I can tell, those classes are not required curriculum in our public schools.
My OPINION? Everyone ought to be wary whenever the term “fact check” is employed by someone as a means of supporting their argument because “facts” are largely conditional or situational when provided without context. One idea (fact?) we might agree upon is that all human beings are biased to some degree and that words can be, and often are, used in ways to influence our emotions.
Think for a moment about the following words and phrases. Do they make you think or feel a certain way? Does a list of associated terms develop in your mind? Do you consider yourself “objective” when you read or hear these words, names, or phrases written or spoken in “news” reports? Do you accept each one at face value, and if so, how do you know that “face value” means the same thing to you as it does to me? Consider these:
Fact Check
Systemic Racism
Jihad
Expert
Black Lives Matter
Democrat
Science
Nancy Pelosi
The “N” Word
Terrorist
Hate Speech
Racism
Snowflake
Nazi
Victim
Assault Rifle
Police Brutality
Oh yeah, and of course, “Trump”
When it comes to the news, I think it’s fair to say the notion of “objective journalism” is largely fiction. During WWII, it was an accepted practice that members of the press would withhold graphic images and casualty details so as not to risk undermining the war effort. Journalists understood the reality that war was an ugly business, so they chose to frame their reports with a version of the “facts” that they believed (opinion) supported an American victory.
Was that the right thing to do? One could argue that they didn’t tell the truth or reveal the “facts.” But then again, as some have said, we might now speaking Japanese or German, had journalists not acted the way they did.
Then in Vietnam, the press swung in the opposite direction, having no hesitation about going above and beyond in their pursuit of so-called “journalistic integrity.” Magazines showed graphic images of Buddhist monks setting themselves of fire in war protests and ran full feature articles about outlier incidents like the My Lai Massacre. Was the reporting balanced or objective? Knowingly or otherwise, the opinions of journalists guided their reporting heavily to support one policy direction over another. Unlike journalists during World War II, those reporting on Vietnam determined the slogan “End the War” should triumph over “Win the War.”
Subsequently, the Vietnam War did end for America, but not in victory over the enemy. Instead, we opted for a complete withdrawal, essentially betraying the people of South Vietnam, even though we had promised to support and defend them. Today, you’ll find it is generally agreed by many that the pro-democracy forces of the South, along with the United States, had, by military standards, won the war. But because of an effective policy-influencing campaign by the press and subsequent pressure exerted on politicians by the public, America essentially surrendered to the North, making all of the American and South Vietnamese lives lost on the side of freedom, wasted.
As my choice of words and phrases suggest, we live in a time when realizing the potential power of words and phrases could not be more important. We ought not accept anything as fact, simply because the source of the information comes from a source that calls itself a fact-checking organization. Ultimately there are people there making decisions about that information, and those decisions cannot help but be colored by human bias and pre-conceived notions.
Is the news comprised of facts… or FAKES?
Think for yourself and do your own fact checking. And then, fact-check the fact checkers.
Leave a Reply