EXCLUSIVE: The “Fact Checker” Fallacy & Dangers of So-Called “Fact-Checking”
by Andrew Shecktor | Investigative Reporter & Radio Host | Eternal Affairs Media
… Edits made by Curtis “Ray Biselliano” Bizelli | Eternal Affairs Media
These days the “Fact Checkers” seem out to get everyone. They are the recipient of both praise and anger. But exactly who are the “Fact Checkers,” and why are they so inherently dangerous to a free society.
Let’s start by defining what a fact is. A fact is a documented or reproducible argument, event or action. So, for instance, I can state that the grass on my lawn is green, and clearly no one would argue that “fact.” Or would they? A color blind person would debate that my grass is in fact grey, and one who could not see yellow might argue that my grass is blue. Would they be wrong? In this case, the answer is “yes,” they would be wrong. They would be wrong because color has been arbitrarily assigned a wavelength by scientists, so it doesn’t matter if you see blue, it is still red. Thus the fact checkers would be correct in saying the grass is green.
Let’s look at another example, where fact checking might have resulted in the loss of a great invention and of great innovation. In the early 20th century Robert Goddard, a pioneering rocket scientist, set out to create a rocket which could leave earth’s orbit. Inspired by the Jules Verne story, “From Earth to the Moon,” he postulated that with the right combination of rocket and fuel one could venture out of earth’s gravitational influence and explore the universe. The science of the time clearly stated this couldn’t be done however. The early news media fact checkers considered Goddard a crazy lunatic, just as they had considered Thomas Edison when he failed to deliver a workable light bulb on time. In any event, the science of the time proved that the faster you go (to escape the earth you need to exceed 25,020 miles per hour) the more fuel you need to burn per mile. The more fuel you burn, the bigger (and heavier) the rocket becomes. The scientists of the time theorized that you could never build a rocket big enough, yet light enough, to contain the fuel needed to escape the earth’s gravitational pull. Yet we clearly have done so, landing many times on the surface of the moon and also sending several spacecraft out of our solar system (which requires even more velocity to escape than earth.) So here, the early fact checkers got it wrong.
Let’s briefly note also the 2016 presidential election where all the fact checker’s agreed that the polling was reasonably accurate, and on election night showed Donald Trump would receive only 6 percent of the vote… We saw how well that turned out!
So then, what exactly is a fact, and why are fact checkers so dangerous?
According to Dictionary.com a fact is “A thing that is known or proven to be true.” A fact also is “A piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.”
Let’s look at the second definition first. “A piece of information…as a part of a report or news article.” Note, there is no indication that this “piece of information” needs to be valid. An observation can be a piece of information. A person on location states, “I was at that Black Lives Matter protest and saw Antifa all over the place along with the protestors. Antifa must be supporting them.” This is a personal observation, not proven fact, yet it can be reported as fact, since it is a fact that someone was actually observed saying it. You see, information is supposed to be free speech. Information observed allows us to make our own decisions based on actual observation. If this information is suppressed, or automatically deleted, then we as individuals cannot make our own investigation and judgment. Fact Checkers have no right censoring valid information even if the statements and conclusions are deemed false in their opinion.
The first definition is “A thing that is known or proven to be true.” This gets far more interesting. If I proclaim “God created the heaven and earth…” a Fact Checker will deny that as fact, and claim it is mystical fiction conjured over time, while truthfully, based on actual science, history and mathematical probability combined, it’s very difficult to deny that there is a Creator for everything. These are the facts. The fact that you’ve been lied to by “Fact Checkers” all your life.
Now, let’s look at the other side. Charles Darwin proclaimed that we formed and evolved from dirt. Dirt magically became microorganisms, which in turn decided to turn into creepy creatures which eventually walked out of the sea, grew legs and arms and became monkeys, which in turn became humans. As for the original creation part, scientists have proclaimed that all that exists, everything in the known universe, popped into creation one day from a huge blast that blew up a particle the size of a pinhead which expanded into the entire known universe. OK folks, just how stupid does this really sound? If anyone really believes this crap they are fools. So, what do the Fact Checkers say about this? “Oh, this is a proven fact. The scientists have found evidence to verify this progression.” No, they have not. The scientists have devised theories that they believe are correct. In most cases, future research proves them wrong, and both science and history change. No scientist has ever created any form of life from dust. And life requires an alphabet – the DNA and RNA, which are not just molecules, but are programmed molecules, programmed by a standard language among all life on earth. Dust doesn’t create language. Dust creates random events – quartz becomes amethyst, carbon becomes diamond when under pressure. Dust has never created life, and the scientific theory specifically states that matter only degrades and loses energy; it never magically reorganizes and improves. Here, the Fact Checkers are not only patently incorrect, this should serve as EVIDENCE that there had to be something or someone with life in order to breath life into that dust to form man.
So, if the Fact Checkers have already been proven wrong by the very definition of a fact, why do they exist, and how can they be trusted?
Fact Checkers throughout time have been used to proclaim the will and belief of the party or parties investing the most money to keep them in business. The sole purpose of formal “fact checking” is to put down any ideas, theories or facts which run contrary to those of the highest bidder.
The highest bidder today is the “deep state” globalists. They are those powerful people, governments and corporations who seek to control society, with the ultimate goal of controlling the monetary systems and adding to their own wealth and power.
In reality a true fact is something which can be proven and validated or which is reproducible. For example, “The cop knelt on the perpetrator’s neck,” “There are ancient bones fossilized in the rock,” “Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election,” “Church services are at 10 am Sunday.” These are all facts.
Speculation is not fact. “The cop intended to kill the perpetrator,” “The ancient bones we found in the rock are a million years old because other stuff around them is a million years old,” “Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because men didn’t want a woman in the White House,” “There may be a confrontation at the church service this week because there was one last week.”
Theory is not fact. “The murder was premeditated because this cop has acted poorly in the past,” “These bones must be millions of years old because stuff embedded in a rock layer is usually of the same age as the rest of the stuff,” “Hillary Clinton didn’t stand a chance in 2016 since it is well known that historically the top post is white male dominated,” “Church most likely won’t be held Sunday because of pandemic restrictions.”
What then is fact? Fact is something which actually happened, is provable or is predictable. Fact: “The cop knelt on the man’s neck and he died.” Fact: “Joe said he heard the cop yell, ‘I am gonna kill you.’” Not fact: “Nah, the cop didn’t kneel on that man’s neck.”
Fact can also be based on citations of “reliable sources,” however the only fact then is that the “reliable source” stated those “facts.” Unless the reporter has firsthand knowledge of the information or incident the only fact is that the source claims it is true. We have seen the “facts” during the 2016 presidential election. “Trump is losing by over 30 percent,” “Hillary Clinton will win by a wide margin based on reliable polls,” etc. The reports stated were factual, the reports themselves were flawed.
Interpretation of the facts should be left up to the individual, who should be able to source both valid and invalid information. Certainly there is no problem stating the source of the information, and the general reliability of that source, but at no time should information be censored or downplayed.
We are at a crossroads today. We are on the verge of losing the great “Information Age.” In a time when we have such a great opportunity to communicate and connect; a time when all the information of the world could be at our fingertips; most ordinary people actually have less access to relevant information than we did in the early 20th century. Why is this? The great censors, Google, social media giants, and mainstream media block the content from us.
And why then is this information being suppressed, even after Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook clearly stated he did not want to censor any political content?
Remember the old adage, “Follow the money?” When corporate sponsorships pull their money, the media responds with censorship. All anyone cares about these days is the money, and the way corporate sponsors get their way is by pulling their money from the parent corporations, banks and others that control the media, social media and others.
In 2018 former NFL football quarterback Colin Kaepernick, known best for kneeling during the National Anthem at games, decided to lay low on his protests, from various interviews he gave at the time. His biggest sponsor, Nike, would have no part of this however. They went after not Kaepernick, however, they threatened to cancel their sponsorship of his home football stadium, which relied on those funds. Nike almost withdrew those funds and cancelled Kaepernick ‘s advertising contract (source: interview on RT America, June, 2020.) Colin caved and continued the Nike campaign.
An article in Quartz magazine September 29, 2018, titled “Nike’s Kaepernick ad is what happens when capitalism and activism collide” explains it best:
“There aren’t many entities in our lives that have voices as loud as those of corporations. They buy up air time between the shows we watch, or sometimes placement within them; elbow their way into our social media feeds; and plaster their ads all over our physical spaces.
“While their encroachment into ever more aspects of our daily existence has been underway for decades, it’s worth remembering that only in the last couple did they really start to make their voices heard on contentious political and social matters.
“’When I first began studying the interactions between social movements and corporations 25 years ago, it was rare to see business take a public stand on social issues,‘ Jerry Davis, a University of Michigan professor of management and sociology, wrote in a piece for the Conversation, detailing the rise of corporate social activism. They may have publicly voiced their opinions on topics like taxes and regulations, but remained ‘scrupulously neutral’ otherwise, he explained, because they had little, if anything, to gain by speaking out.
“That has all changed, of course, as Nike recently demonstrated when it chose to include former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick in its ad campaign to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the slogan ‘Just Do It.’
“Kaepernick has been the figurehead for a movement of NFL players kneeling during the US national anthem in protest of police killings of unarmed black Americans. Reactions to those protests have been heated and sharply split down political lines. Though neither the ad nor the Kaepernick-narrated commercial Nike released explicitly mentions the protests, police shootings, or anything controversial, Kaepernick has become so synonymous with his kneeling that the two can hardly be separated. The tagline also alludes to his allegation that he remains unemployed as a quarterback because the NFL has colluded to ban him: ‘Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.’ Calls for boycotts of Nike predictably ensued, including from police organizations and at least one town mayor.”
Our mission must be to find ways to prove the Fact Checkers wrong, do our best to provide proof of our facts and find ways to get around the ever increasing grip of control by corporate and political greed and by bought and paid “Fact Checkers”, and take back what is rightly ours – our freedom of speech.