I'm a big fan of NPR, but recently I've noticed that they'll so things are "debunked" as if anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Debunked by who?
That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
"What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people."
"Rating: Mixed"
Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement.
The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
> If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement.
But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant.
> The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
I mean, as far as I've seen, Joe Biden never said the words "no empathy" anywhere near the word "plight", so I guess the extremely literal cut-and-dry answer to the question is no.
Yet, as you say, he did pretty much say that, but there is room for context, which the article does a pretty good job of presenting. People deserve to know the context and then judge the comment for themselves.
Can I get a fact check on whether ahelwer said "all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall"? Is it true that you once said that (in this very comment section, no less)? It is true, and it isn't true; a mixture.
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like the exact same thing.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/
From my recollection, it previously had no explicitly political content (unfortunately, it has been blocked from the Wayback Machine).
I don't have any interest in what I see on the current version of snopes, which I guess must be following some money.
I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs.
Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.
Though, their apparent position relative to the Republican party seems to have changed drastically.
This was before 9/11 but that week I knew we would be going to war in Afghanistan because overnight the left-leaning pundits were speaking in solidarity with fox news talking points. This really disillusioned NPR for me, and I had been an avid listener for 10 years at that point.
I really only see superficial differences between the two sides of the media at this point.