Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday October 15 2016, @07:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the snopes-way-this-will-work dept.

Google News will begin labeling "fact-checking" articles that appear major news story clusters. Richard Gingras, the "Head of News" at Google, writes that Google News will check for schema.org ClaimReview markup:

Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter's Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself.

In the seven years since we started labeling types of articles in Google News (e.g., In-Depth, Opinion, Wikipedia), we've heard that many readers enjoy having easy access to a diverse range of content types. Earlier this year, we added a "Local Source" Tag to highlight local coverage of major stories. Today, we're adding another new tag, "Fact check," to help readers find fact checking in large news stories. You'll see the tagged articles in the expanded story box on news.google.com and in the Google News & Weather iOS and Android apps, starting with the U.S. and the U.K.

TechCrunch notes that "The Schema community builds markups for structured data on the internet. The group is sponsored by Google but also has support from Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 15 2016, @09:21PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 15 2016, @09:21PM (#414673) Homepage Journal

    From TFS:

    Today, we're adding another new tag, "Fact check," to help readers find fact checking in large news stories. You'll see the tagged articles in the expanded story box on news.google.com and in the Google News & Weather iOS and Android apps, starting with the U.S. and the U.K.

    I'm a little confused at all the complaints about this. Google (they're a bunch of greedy scumbags, true but that's not relevant to this story) is adding the tag "Fact check" to certain stories which claim to be just that.

    You folks seem to think that this is subversive or corrupt in some way. By that logic, labeling ebay or amazon as "shopping" sites is equally criminal, no?

    Just labeling something as a "fact check" doesn't imbue any special validity to the link, nor does it imply that it's "more" correct than any other link.

    Don't like the use of such labels? Don't use Google. Try Duck Duck Go [duckduckgo.com] or Bing [bing.com] instead. Geez, Louise folks! Get a grip.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @09:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @09:35PM (#414674)

    > You folks seem to think that this is subversive or corrupt in some way.

    Of course they do. Because this site is full of conspiracy theory addicts. Its like mental meth. Fact checking is such downer.
    And now google wants to make it harder for them to avoid actual facts. Why does google have to be such a wet blanket and ruin the party?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @09:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @09:59PM (#414682)

      When you see day after day of 'fact check' being used fairly heavy handed against one side of the discussion yeah people are going to react fairly negatively with the term.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:24PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:24PM (#414684) Homepage Journal

        When you see day after day of 'fact check' being used fairly heavy handed against one side of the discussion yeah people are going to react fairly negatively with the term.

        Please provide cites of actual bias. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:46AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:46AM (#414722) Journal

          What, why how could anybody believe that Google [macdailynews.com] could be biased towards a single party [wsj.com], its not like their chairman is working for the Hillary Campaign [qz.com] right? Oh wait...

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:13AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:13AM (#414743) Journal

            I was mildly shocked to learn that Paul Ryan's wife is a fundraiser for Clinton. That reinforces the idea that the ruling class has no party, it's all just smoke and mirrors to confuse the voting chumps.

            https://www.bustle.com/articles/136028-who-is-paul-ryans-wife-janna-the-former-lawyer-and-lobbyist-is-incredibly-accomplished [bustle.com]

            Of course, Ryan is just another Rino.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:29AM (#414748)

              Donald Trump's current wife is an immigrant.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:15AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:15AM (#414760)

                You forgot to mention that she is an ILLEGAL immigrant.

                She came on a *tourist* visa and sought and found **employment** while she was here.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:29AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:29AM (#414774)

                  Nothing wrong with that. She's white after all.

                  Never mind that a little over a century ago slovenian immigrants like here weren't white (just as the irish and italians weren't either).
                  But now they are all one big happy whitey family!

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:35AM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:35AM (#414796) Journal

                  Is she now married to an American citizen? She may be a gold digger (or not) but the law and my own opinion says that she has the right to be here. Unlike about fifty million illegal invaders from Mexico.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:27AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:27AM (#414773)

              And everyone in your family are members of the same political party?

              If its OK for the plebes to support different parties under one roof why should the powerful be expected to do otherwise?

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:33AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:33AM (#414795) Journal

                None of the members of my household are members of any political party, unless "independent" actually counts as a party. No member of my family has tossed money to a party, and few of us have donated to any candidates. Those candidates who have recieved money from my family have been mostly independent, or if they were members of a party, they acted independent. Each and every member of my family has been taught to think for themselves. More, you might say that their thinking has been "tainted" by my own thinking. This goes for my immediate family, as well as my extended family.

                That CERTAINLY doesn't mean that we all think alike. For instance, the reasons that I hate Clinton don't really figure in to my wife's reasons for hating Clinton. My reasons for despising Trump are not my wife's reasons. We do agree that we are going to be humped, no matter which of them wins.

                Think outside the box, Grasshopper. Both of the Ryans are members of the Ruling Class, and it doesn't matter which party's livery they might wear in public. They answer to the same masters.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:00PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:00PM (#414838) Journal

              They are members of the same party. I have personally seen Rupert Murdoch and Chris Ruddy (CEO of Newsmax, the downmarket Fox) doing business with Bill Clinton.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:31PM (#414687)

        "One side" believes Jesus was blonde and spoke American and wrote the consistution, which gives them the right to shoot anyone who looks funny.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:50PM (#414974)

          Hey cool a douchebag showed up to put words in my mouth because he disagreed with me. Dude just use the disagree tag.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:42PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:42PM (#414691) Homepage Journal

        When you see day after day of 'fact check' being used fairly heavy handed against one side of the discussion yeah people are going to react fairly negatively with the term.

        Just because something is called a 'fact check' doesn't mean it actually is. Trusting someone else to tell you this (whether you accept or reject it) is moronic. Any such tags should be treated with appropriate skepticism.

        Which is, BTW, why I suggested you provide cites for your claim. Because just because you (or google) say so, doesn't make it true. Or does that bit elude you?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:52PM (#414695)

        When you see day after day of 'fact check' being used fairly heavy handed against one side of the discussion yeah people are going to react fairly negatively with the term.

        Why would that be? Hint: just because "they" lie is no reason for you to lie too. The way to fight the lies of "the other side" is to give a fair and unvarnished presentation of the facts and let the audience decide what to conclude from it all.

        • (Score: 2) by schad on Sunday October 16 2016, @01:36AM

          by schad (2398) on Sunday October 16 2016, @01:36AM (#414737)

          Fact-checking isn't the job of journalists. If it belongs anywhere in journalism, it's in an editorial piece. If you're worried that Trump's lies are going uncorrected, the fault lies with the Clinton campaign. Of course, the Clinton campaign is calling Trump a liar on a daily basis; it's just that Hillary may literally be the only person in the world who's perceived as less honest than The Donald.

          Journalists ought to report on the facts. They should not be "checking" them. Journalists aren't objective arbiters of truth, no matter how much they like to believe they are. Report on what Trump said, if it's newsworthy. Include the Clinton campaign's response. Ask Gary Johnson and Jill Stein too; why not? And then give Trump a chance to respond. That's how you "fact-check" if you want to be an actual journalist. If you don't like the results -- if people continue to believe the stupidly transparent lies fed to them by politicians -- well, get used to disappointment. It's not an excuse to take on the job of the opposing campaign, and it erodes whatever shred of public trust your profession has left.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:17AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:17AM (#414746) Journal

            I disagree. Journalists are supposed to report the news, yes. But we have an entire class of journalists, called "investigative journalists". These are the detectives of the journalism world.

            Editorial pages, you say? Sorry, the editorial page is where the editor dazzles you with bullshit, to sway you toward his line of thinking. The editorial page has been used to paint the DNC, RNC, communism, Catholicism, and anything else in a rosy hue. The editorial page is an "opinion page", and there is little if any fact checkiing done on those pages.

            Newshounds tell you what is going on, investigative journalists try to tell you the story behind the story, and the editor tries to interpret the story so that his party looks good. I think that sums things up.

            • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @03:26PM

              by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @03:26PM (#415217)

              And where does "fact-checking" fall in your triumvirate? I'd argue that it falls in the realm of editorial work: interpreting the vague, content-free statements uttered by politicians in whichever way best suits the editor. Because there is just not enough actual reality in any of them to do anything else.

              I'll give an example. It was the first item in the first story on factcheck.org [factcheck.org], and here's what they say:

              Trump claimed that Clinton “admitted that ISIS could infiltrate with the refugees,” adding, “then why’s she letting so many people into our country?” But Clinton was talking about Jordan vetting the refugees coming into that country, not the refugees coming into the U.S.

              It seems to me that the obvious reading of Trump's remarks is this: "If they can infiltrate the refugee stream in Jordan, why can't they infiltrate the refugee stream in the US as well?" Clinton's admission, then, is a statement that even she recognizes the risk, but is willing to allow refugees despite it. And Trump's clear implication is that Clinton is willing to put the well-being of Middle Eastern refugees ahead of the safety of American citizens.

              Now, there's plenty of room for disagreement in the conclusion. You might think that the risk to American safety is trivial or unimportant, but the benefits to refugees are enormous. You might think that, despite the risks, allowing refugees is the right thing to do. You might think that we can do a better job at background checks than Jordan. And so on and so forth. But these are all matters of opinion, not fact. Even if you disagree with my reading of Trump's comments, that's still a matter of opinion.

              Politicians -- and Trump is not substantively different in this regard -- are experts at talking a lot but saying very little. The really good ones make speeches that are like inkblot tests, where everyone in the audience hears something different. This is the reason that fact-check pieces are basically editorials: few politicians are careless enough to say things which can be called unequivocal lies. The fact-checker must interpret the candidate's words in an effort to figure out what he was "really" saying.

              For instance, when somebody -- I forget who, except that I think it was a Republican -- called Obama "skinny" in some past election cycle, was it a racist dog-whistle? There's really no way to answer that question except by leaning on your biases. If you're in the group that thinks that all Republicans are racists, then you'll interpret it as racism. And when you're fact-checking a comment like, "So-and-so called Obama 'skinny,' a well-known racist dog-whistle," you'll rate it as True. You'll interpret the comment literally: "'skinny' is a racist dog-whistle." But if you think that Republicans are unfairly accused of racism, you'll interpret that same comment very differently and rate it False: "While 'skinny' is sometimes used as a racist dog-whistle, there is no indication that So-and-so meant it as anything other than a description of Obama's fit physique." The first fact-check goes to the literal words, while the second goes to the implication behind them (that So-and-so is a racist). Which approach is correct? Both? Neither? Do you call the statement True or False? True, With Caveats? Grossly Misleading, Though Technically True?

              At some point you will end up with 2000-word articles to address a one-sentence sound bite. And you have to, because anything less than that is probably going to be just as misleading as the sound bite itself.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 17 2016, @06:54PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 17 2016, @06:54PM (#415321) Journal

                "interpreting the vague, content-free statements uttered by politicians in whichever way best suits the editor."

                Let me repeat the key phrase out of that: "whichever way suits the editor".

                That means, opinion. Opinion isn't news, nor is it fact checking. It may be newsworthy to learn that Obama really likes Putin, but it's not really "news". It's an article on a famous person's opinion, and little more than meaningless. If, on the other hand, the EDITOR really admires Putin, it is less than meaningless. So, Joe Schmoe in Little Town, America, respects Putin. That isn't news, his opinion isn't news, and it belongs on the editorial page.

                First year of journalism, every wannabe journalist learns that editorials aren't news. Opinions aren't news. Every Tome, Dick, and Harry can write submissions for the editorial page, giving their opinions pm anything, and everything. You or I may agree or disagree with those opinions, but they aren't news, they aren't facts, and they certainly aren't fact checking.

                From your example, we can read Clinton's statement in a limited number of ways. Who says that she is talking about refugees in Jordan? Had she mentioned Jordan specifically, THEN we would know exactly what she meant. Someone's statement that she was talking about Jordan is merely an opinion. Did Clinton TELL HIM/HER that she meant Jordan? Or, did they just assume that because they choose to hear her words in the most favorable light?

                I believe that Clinton has no intention of vetting refugees any better than Jordan does, or any of the European nations with open borders. And, that's opinion, once again. Clinton didn't tell me that, I can't know what is in her mind, so my opinion is opinion. And, it belongs on the editorial page, if I were to publish it.

                Fact checkers. You've got to be very careful of them. The thrust of TFA is, Google can and will do the "fact checkiing" in a manner to meet their own agenda. It's safe to say that most, if not all, fact checkers have an agenda.

                Do you trust Google to present the facts without a spin? I don't. I don't trust any of the brain trusts either. All the think tanks are funded by partisans, after all.

                Let us not stop reading the news, and let's remember to read that news from multiple sources. THEN se can make up our own minds.

                The "executive summary" offered by fact checkers is alright, I guess, but it leaves a lot of detail out.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:50AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:50AM (#414768) Homepage Journal

            Journalists ought to report on the facts. They should not be "checking" them. Journalists aren't objective arbiters of truth, no matter how much they like to believe they are. Report on what Trump said, if it's newsworthy.

            So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries? You are woefully uninformed.

            As the old saw goes, 'it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.'

            You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday October 16 2016, @07:13AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Sunday October 16 2016, @07:13AM (#414805)

              So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?

              Exactly. Who, What, Where, When, Why. Fox News got the motto right, they just failed to live up to it about as badly as everybody else playing at journalism. "We report, you decide." The purpose of the journalist is to be in all of the places where news happens and reliably report those events to their subscribers. Tell me what happened, who did what and that sort of thing. Even the Why is starting to get into opinion in a lot of stories so at least be sure you report all of the proposed theories as to that one. And don't even play games of omission, yes a package for broadcast is three minutes tops, an article for print has a severe word limit, etc. But we are on the Internet now. Package the story up as nicely as you need to for mass sales, but put all of the stuff from the editing room floor on a link, put links to the source documents, etc. That is what I would like journalism to become, a running history archive with curators. Editorialists, pundits, bloggers, authors of think pieces, etc. have a place in the pipeline of informing the public, but it isn't on the front lines of journalism.

              But that isn't sexy. It doesn't make the reporter feel important enough. So when the Progressives came they had little trouble converting most of the existing reporters to the new job description they teach in J-school now, "make the world a better place." Sorry dude, beyond your pay grade. Some of the best reporters were ink stained wretches who were drunk most of the time, proving it isn't exactly the most intellectually demanding profession. Patience, diligence and a nose for news are the prime requisites along bravery bordering on stupidity for those who cover wars.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:02AM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:02AM (#414812) Homepage Journal

                Exactly. Who, What, Where, When, Why. Fox News got the motto right, they just failed to live up to it about as badly as everybody else playing at journalism. "We report, you decide." The purpose of the journalist is to be in all of the places where news happens and reliably report those events to their subscribers. Tell me what happened, who did what and that sort of thing. Even the Why is starting to get into opinion in a lot of stories so at least be sure you report all of the proposed theories as to that one. And don't even play games of omission, yes a package for broadcast is three minutes tops, an article for print has a severe word limit, etc. But we are on the Internet now. Package the story up as nicely as you need to for mass sales, but put all of the stuff from the editing room floor on a link, put links to the source documents, etc. That is what I would like journalism to become, a running history archive with curators. Editorialists, pundits, bloggers, authors of think pieces, etc. have a place in the pipeline of informing the public, but it isn't on the front lines of journalism.

                So far, I'm with you, and well said. However, GP strongly implied that journalists should not collate/organize the information they collect, nor should they compare and contrast that information with other, either public or previously collected information.

                This is incorrect. A journalist isn't just a note taker. A journalist's job is (as you correctly state) to report what happens. However, providing context (not in the sense of opinion, but in the sense of other relevant information that may or may not be contemporaneous) is also an important function of a journalist.

                As an example, If a bank is robbed and the FBI releases a statement that they have captured a single male bank robber, even though numerous bank employees and customers related that the bank was robbed by three bikini-clad women, GP would have reporters simply report the varying accounts of what happened without any follow up. That's bad journalism. Rather, a good journalist should further question both the FBI and the bank employees/customers about the discrepancies, and attempt to discern those same five 'W's about that as well.

                But that isn't sexy. It doesn't make the reporter feel important enough. So when the Progressives came they had little trouble converting most of the existing reporters to the new job description they teach in J-school now, "make the world a better place."

                Here's where we part company. There is no ideological bias in that sort of activity. Whether it's those who you call Progressive or those you call Conservative (who are usually radical reactionaries), that sort of behavior is all too common. Inserting your personal preferences into unrelated areas is quite tiresome and generally causes me to ignore you. Which is a shame, since you apparently had something useful (see above) to say. Perhaps you do at other times as well, but as soon as you interject your political leanings into something completely unrelated, I generally tune out.

                Sorry dude, beyond your pay grade. Some of the best reporters were ink stained wretches who were drunk most of the time, proving it isn't exactly the most intellectually demanding profession. Patience, diligence and a nose for news are the prime requisites along bravery bordering on stupidity for those who cover wars.

                That's often accurate and not very surprising, but certainly useful in this context. If you'd left out the couple of sentences immediately prior to this, your post would actually be worthy of an insightful mod.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @03:41PM

                  by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @03:41PM (#415225)

                  However, GP strongly implied that journalists should not collate/organize the information they collect, nor should they compare and contrast that information with other, either public or previously collected information.

                  I did no such thing. I said that in response to some Trump bloviation, reporters should seek out comment from the Clinton, Johnson, and Stein campaigns; and that the Trump campaign should be given a chance to respond to those comments. Granted, I did not expressly state that all of this should be put together into a single article, but, as it's all part of the same story, that would be the obvious approach.

                  As an example, If a bank is robbed and the FBI releases a statement that they have captured a single male bank robber, even though numerous bank employees and customers related that the bank was robbed by three bikini-clad women, GP would have reporters simply report the varying accounts of what happened without any follow up. That's bad journalism. Rather, a good journalist should further question both the FBI and the bank employees/customers about the discrepancies, and attempt to discern those same five 'W's about that as well.

                  I would do no such thing, because a bank robbery is not an election and it makes no sense to report on the two the same way. The male isn't running for Bank Robber of the USA, and his opponents aren't members of The Three Bikini-Clad Women Party.

            • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @02:43PM

              by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @02:43PM (#415206)

              You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.

              That apparatus between your ears is useful for things other than making you act like a twat. Or perhaps yours isn't; I've literally never seen you contribute anything to SN except snark. Regardless, you might want to give it a whirl.

              Also:

              So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?

              If gathering the facts, asking pointed questions to get at information that's below the surface, and then synthesizing it all into a coherent explanation for events is what you consider secretarial work, then you must not think very highly of scientists.

              Or perhaps you just think very highly of secretaries. Having seen what happens to offices which lay them off to save a few bucks, I certainly hold them in higher regard than I used to.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday October 17 2016, @03:36PM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday October 17 2016, @03:36PM (#415221) Homepage Journal

                You might wish to consider that the next time you're thinking about spouting off.

                That apparatus between your ears is useful for things other than making you act like a twat. Or perhaps yours isn't; I've literally never seen you contribute anything to SN except snark. Regardless, you might want to give it a whirl.

                Your opinion is duly noted. Thanks for sharing the results of what, I'm sure, was an exhaustive review of my posting history [soylentnews.org]. Are there any particular bits of snark you really enjoyed? Inquiring minds want to know.

                Also:

                       

                So in your view, journalists are glorified secretaries?

                If gathering the facts, asking pointed questions to get at information that's below the surface, and then synthesizing it all into a coherent explanation for events is what you consider secretarial work, then you must not think very highly of scientists.

                Or perhaps you just think very highly of secretaries. Having seen what happens to offices which lay them off to save a few bucks, I certainly hold them in higher regard than I used to.

                I see that in addition to being obnoxious, you also have problems with reading comprehension [soylentnews.org]. A fabulous combination. I commend you, sir.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 2) by schad on Monday October 17 2016, @04:04PM

                  by schad (2398) on Monday October 17 2016, @04:04PM (#415234)

                  Are there any particular bits of snark you really enjoyed? Inquiring minds want to know.

                  No, I'm afraid not. Most of your snark falls in the "You're dumb, and I will not waste my time with you" category, so there's not a lot of variety. Kudos for mixing it up a little with the heavy sarcasm here, I suppose. But you're laying it on really thick to imply that I'm too dumb to get it otherwise. So it's just a slightly different form of your usual.

                  A straight response would've been more effective, I think. I wouldn't have been able to tell if you were responding genuinely or if you were mocking me in some way that I just wasn't seeing. That's not snark, of course, but most snark is just so mindless that I'm not sure I can ever really appreciate it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:39AM (#414776)

            What you are describing is known as "press release journalism" and it is the lowest, least useful form of journalism. It is the duty of a newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. PR journalism is nearly the exact reverse of that maxim.

            And if you don't think that even PR journalism can be used to present the subjective viewpoints of the reporters then you have a babe-in-the-woods level of naivete -- its all in which statements you pass on to the audience and which ones you ignore. After all, the audience for news reporting expects a summary, not a complete copy of everything being reported on. What and how you summarize is everything.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @09:57PM (#414980)

          But you think one side is not being one sided. Ok fair enough. Count the number of positive clinton and trump items on this page. Now count the negative ones. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/ [reddit.com] Then repeat on this page http://www.cnn.com/politics [cnn.com]

          I personally come to a different conclusion than you do.

          Those sorta lies told every day are creating a new force of 'righteous anger'. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article108627627.html [charlotteobserver.com]

          Are you ok with that sort of thing? Just because it is someone you dont like?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:31PM (#414688)

      Because this site is full of conspiracy theory addicts.

      Define "full of" and then provide credible evidence to prove your claim.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:45PM (#414692)

        credible evidence to prove your claim.

        cf. here [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:32AM (#414749)

          Yup, there's a conspiracy theory right there at the top of the page.

          "Supramolecule" Created Using Two Negatively Charged Bisulfate Ions

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:29AM (#414714)

        NO! No! Define "is"!

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:39AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @02:39AM (#414751) Journal
    What is the point of the label? What does it tell the would-be clicker of the link that they need or want to know?

    You folks seem to think that this is subversive or corrupt in some way.

    Easy false advertising. The publishers of the story just need to have the right scheme structure and Google will for free heavily imply that they are a legitimate fact checking operation.

    Just labeling something as a "fact check" doesn't imbue any special validity to the link, nor does it imply that it's "more" correct than any other link.

    I disagree with the second part. It does imply that the fact checking article is more correct than what it is checking.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:36AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:36AM (#414765) Homepage Journal

      Just labeling something as a "fact check" doesn't imbue any special validity to the link, nor does it imply that it's "more" correct than any other link.

      I disagree with the second part. It does imply that the fact checking article is more correct than what it is checking.

      Au contraire, mon frere. Not even close. Regardless of any markings, one must determine the "correctness" of an particular article or link for oneself.

      To do otherwise is to exchange the opportunity to use your own critical thinking for that of some corporate entity which almost certainly has a hidden agenda.

      The only assumption that can reasonably be made is that someone is choosing to call it a 'fact check'. Which, while not absurd on its face, isn't exactly any endorsement as to the validity or veracity of the link.

      As such, accepting that any link is more valid than any other without personally confirming the veracity of said link is stupid at best. That people will likely do so doesn't make it any less stupid.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:35AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:35AM (#414785) Journal

        Au contraire, mon frere. Not even close. Regardless of any markings, one must determine the "correctness" of an particular article or link for oneself.

        Where is Google's caveat every time they do this?

        To do otherwise is to exchange the opportunity to use your own critical thinking for that of some corporate entity which almost certainly has a hidden agenda.

        You don't say?

        As such, accepting that any link is more valid than any other without personally confirming the veracity of said link is stupid at best. That people will likely do so doesn't make it any less stupid.

        Who knew people could be stupid? Who knew?