Guest post by David Middleton
There has recently been an uproar about “fake news stories.” Since the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of these nominally United States many have called for the censorship of fake news stories…
The war on ‘fake news’ is all about censoring real news
By Karol Markowicz December 4, 2016
Scrambling for an explanation for Donald Trump’s victory, many in the media and on the left have settled on the idea that his supporters were consumers of “fake news” — gullible rubes living in an alternate reality made Trump president.
To be sure, there is such a thing as actual fake news: made-up stories built to get Facebook traction before they can be debunked. But that’s not what’s really going on here.
What the left is trying to do is designate anything outside its ideological bubble as suspect on its face.
In October, President Obama complained that we need a “curating function” to deal with the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow.” Who would be doing this “curating” is unclear — but we can guess: “Obviously,” Noah Feldman writes at Bloomberg View, “it would be better if the market would fix the problem on its own . . . But if they can’t reliably do it — and that seems possible, since algorithms aren’t (yet) fact-checkers — there might be a need for the state to step in.”
In other words, censorship.
[…]
“In October, President Obama complained that we need a ‘curating function’ to deal with the ‘wild-wild-west-of-information flow.’ Well, Mr. Soon-to-be-ex-President, we already have an entire cottage industry of “curators.” One of these curators is a website called “FactCheck.org” and they have an amazing ability to get facts wrong and routinely deliver logically fallacious dissertations. Here is their latest example:
The chairman of the Senate environment committee falsely claimed that a new report “confirms” that “hydraulic fracturing has not impacted drinking water” in Wyoming. The report said a lack of water quality data predating oil and gas exploration prevented it from reaching “firm conclusions.”
Sen. James Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, made his remarks in a statement issued Nov. 10 — the day that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality issued a report on water-supply wells in Pavillion, a small town southeast of Yellowstone National Park.
The industry-funded state report specifically looked at the “likelihood of impacts from oil and gas operations” on 14 water-supply wells used by residents living near Pavillion. Since the 1990s, residents in the area have “complained of physical ailments and said their drinking water was black and tasted of chemicals,” ProPublica reported.
Inhofe, Nov. 10: The Wyoming DEQ’s thorough investigation over the past several years has come to a close and confirms what we’ve known all along: hydraulic fracturing has not impacted drinking water resources.
But that’s not what the report said.
The “fact sheet” for the Wyoming report said it’s “unlikely” that hydraulic fracturing had “any impacts” on these water-supply wells, but “[l]imited baseline water quality data, predating development of the Pavillion Gas Field hinders reaching firm conclusions on causes and effects of reported water quality changes.”
[…]
The burden of proof is on those who assert that fracking pollutes groundwater. FactCheck.org is shifting the burden of proof and employing a “distinction without a difference” fallacy in order to falsely claim that Senator Inhofe’s statement was a “false claim.”
Unless evidence is presented that fracking has polluted groundwater, this statement is 100% correct, if not elegantly worded:
The Wyoming DEQ’s thorough investigation over the past several years has come to a close and confirms what we’ve known all along: hydraulic fracturing has not impacted drinking water resources.
In 2011, the EPA issued a preliminary report that fracking was the likely cause of groundwater pollution in the Pavillion WY area. The API shredded this report in 2012. In 2013, the EPA cast doubt on their own report. And now, the Wyoming DEQ has issued a report which “contradicts” the EPA’s 2011 junk science…
Wyoming study: Fracking likely not behind well water problem
A final state report released on foul-smelling well water in Wyoming contradicts an EPA report from five years ago that ignited a national backlash when it suggested hydraulic fracturing was the cause of the contamination
Nov. 10, 2016
By MEAD GRUVER, Associated Press
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A final state report released Thursday on foul-smelling well water in Wyoming contradicts an EPA report from five years ago that ignited a national backlash when it suggested hydraulic fracturing was the cause of the contamination.
Bacteria were more likely to blame for the problem in Pavillion than the oil and gas drilling process known as fracking, officials with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality said after a two-year study that was hailed by fracking advocates.
“Today’s announcement from the Wyoming DEQ doesn’t just close the case on Pavillion, it’s a knockout blow for activists who have tried to use Pavillion as a key talking point for their ban-fracking agenda,” said Randy Hildreth, Colorado director of Energy in Depth, an advocacy arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.[…]
Other EPA investigations into whether fracking caused groundwater pollution in Texas and Pennsylvania also failed to yield conclusive links.
The industry continues to assert the safety of fracking, which occurs in the drilling of almost every new oil and gas well.
Wyoming officials also called on the EPA in the report released Thursday to fill in and cap two wells it drilled to study groundwater in the Pavillion area.
The request underscores Wyoming officials’ position that the EPA’s science was bad and the chemistry of the well pipes probably led to its key findings, said Kevin Frederick, water quality administrator for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
“EPA installed the monitoring wells. We believe it’s their responsibility to plug and abandon them,” Frederick said.
The irony is the fact that the groundwater pollutants identified by the EPA were likely the result of their own monitoring wells.
Media fact checkers like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact routinely employ “distinction without a difference” arguments to generate fake news stories.
In addition to the burden of proof and distinction without a difference fallacy, this statement was misleading and probably “unnecessary fear mongering”…
Pavillion, a small town southeast of Yellowstone National Park.
This was clearly to imply that any water pollution in Pavillion would imperil the pristine wilderness of nearby Yellowstone National Park. It is a meaningless geographical reference. The entire State of Wyoming is southeast of Yellowstone National Park. Pavillion is 170 miles southeast of the park.
Logic Referee from Flag on the Argument.
Featured Image from Shutterstock.
The EPA drilled their own wells? That is not irony. That is fraudulent. Pavilion, WY is a town with no tap water of its own, and no water department?
Lock them up…
The water contamination was reported by individuals who have their own wells, as is common in Wyoming. The population of Pavillion is under 300, so there may or may not be a “water department”. The wells in question were from rural Pavillion, not the town itself.
There really isn’t a “town” of Pavilion.
Is “fake news” like claiming the Benghazi attack was triggered by a Youtube video? Yeah, we sure need to clamp down on irresponsible loose cannons putting junk like that out to the public …
Just heard that Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General has been named new EPA administrator.
Well, now the radio says “leaning-towards” Pruitt. I guess I misheard her.
I was not practicing “fake News” I assure you. 🙂 Would have sworn she said “had picked”.
Well, now the news reader says Pruitt has been nominated to EPA chief.
Isn’t a constantly changing story one of the indicators of a “fake news” site???? ;*)
I was listening to a radio station newscast. It’s not fake news, they just aren’t very specific. Probably because they are getting slightly conflicting reports. They have described this supposed nomination a different way every time they report it.
You wouldn’t want to depend on them for breaking news, which was my mistake. Although it does look like Pruitt is going to be the pick (from other sources:).
We need a war on vague news. Sort of. Maybe.
Good news!
From Reuters today:
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump plans to appoint Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, a Trump transition team source said on Wednesday.
Pruitt was elected Oklahoma’s attorney general in November 2010 and has focused on restoring more regulatory oversight to states and limiting federal regulations.
As his state’s top legal official, he sued the agency is he poised to lead multiple times, including a pending lawsuit to topple the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of Democratic President Barack Obama’s climate change strategy.
Pruitt on Wednesday held his second meeting with Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20.
(Reporting by David Shepardson and Valerie Volcovici; Writing by Susan Heavey; Editing by Chris Reese and Jonathan Oatis)
Plus 10.
the site ZeroHedge says “has picked”.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/312068-breaking-trump-taps-oklahoma-attorney-general-scott-pruitt-as-epa-head/
Wait for it – the warmists heads are going to explode in unison!!! 3…2…1…….
They are citing the Reuters report I cited, which said “plans to appoint”. Looks like it is a done deal, but …
Sierra Club and Greenpeace both just did. As did Sen. Schumer.
Yep. The Grey Lady reports Pruitt has been named the nominee. I see Harry Reid’s nuclear option being invoked to clear the Senate, same as with Jeff Session for AG. A fox in the hen house. “Elections have consequences.”
Poor Coral Davenport was probably sobbing as she wrote the article…
http://img1.r10.io/PIC/15514044/0/1/450/15514044.jpg
The NY Times did one thing right: they called Pruit a “climate dissenter.” That’s better than the AP’s “doubter.” It’s even better than “contrarian.”
Would multiple liberal heads exploding at once, create a potential super fund site?
No. There is nothing at all inside them.
++ many, many ristvan
“Every American should be appalled that President-elect Trump just picked someone who has made a career of being a vocal defender for polluters to head our Environmental Protection Agency,” Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said in an emailed statement. “He has fought Environmental Protection Agency pollution limits on toxic substances like soot and mercury that put us all at risk for increased cancer, childhood asthma and other health problems. He falsely claims that fracking doesn’t contaminate drinking water supplies.”
Keep lying. How’s it working out so far?
If the fact checkers had any integrity, that statement would earn a few dozen Pinocchio’s all by itself.
“Keep lying. How’s it working out so far?”
George W. Bush, aka “shrub”, wasn’t the most honest operator either, so keep in mind that you might be eating your words 8 years from now? Personally, I’m a skeptic. A dyed in the wool skeptic who’s never met a politician he liked.
We can celebrate this victory, but only briefly. After 1/20/17, we go back on guard.
A gift that will keep on giving:
More from ThinkProgress.org on the Pruitt nomination:
“Though the EPA’s role is largely codified in law, much of this law is vague. Many of the EPA’s most powerful rules, such as the Clean Power Plan, were developed at the agency’s discretion, in an attempt to find the best way to limit carbon emissions, which it is required to do. These rules could be undone, reconsidered, or rolled back significantly by new leadership. Moreover, though many of these efforts to limit environmental regulation would likely be challenged in court, the Supreme Court will soon be controlled by Republicans once again, and thus is likely to go along with a deregulatory agenda.”
From your mouth to God’s ear!
There is nothing that requires the EPA to limit CO2 emissions. There is a court ruling that they are permitted to do so. Which is not the same thing, at least out here in the real world it isn’t.
It is now more legally complicated since EPA issued an endangerment finding; changingnthat ties things up,in litigation ‘forever’. Easiest path in my opinion is a simple CAA amendment fixing the completely open and circular pollutant definition: a gas essential for photosynthesis and therefore beneficial to plants to 1200 ppm, and not harmul to animals at 8000 ppm, is not a pollutant for purposes of this act.
The EPA is legally bound to regulate CO2 due to the endangerment filing. It can revoke the endangerment filing; however it has to do so in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Since the endangerment finding issued by Lisa Jackson was 100% arbitrary and capricious, it should be fairly easy for Scott Pruitt to 86 it.
David, Rud –
I believe I’d cite the US Navy’s practices aboard submarines. I suggest Peter Benet’s (M.D.) well researched collection “The Physiology and Medicine of Diving”. I own the 4th edition. It sets limits for safe exposures to CO2.
First, let me say I do not believe fracking harms drinking water. My problem with the statement, “…confirms what we’ve known all along: hydraulic fracturing has not impacted drinking water resources.” is in two parts: 1. A lack of sufficient information to confirm a positive hypothesis (fracking has harmed drinking water there) is not the same thing as confirming the negative (fracking has NOT harmed drinking water there). 2. “confirms what we’ve know all along” at least creates the impression, if not the reality, of confirmation bias.
JL, cannot speak to Wyoming, but in Pennsylvania where the Marcellus is fracked for natural gas, by state law each water well within a certain radius (if I recall correctly a mile) of a frack well has to be tested before the well is spudded and after the well is completed. No differences before and after is absolute proof positive that fracking does not contaminate ground water. We are now talking thousands of wells over several years. There was exactly one well that showed a problem likely owing to improperly set casing. It was immediately plugged and abandoned and the groundwater returned to prewell baseline in about 6 weeks.
Wyoming started that rule in 2013. They check within a half mile radius, I believe. However, since many, many wells have no baseline, these are what are brought up as examples of contamination. Then one cannot prove contamination by fracking nor can they prove contamination by another source. It’s just not possible to know. Now, with any new wells, we will know.
There has been fracking in Wyoming for decades and no complaints until about 2010 when a rural Pavillion resident claimed his well was contaminated by fracking. Since wells in Wyoming often have marginally drinkable water (RO systems are very common—”good drinking water” claims on rural wells can be very misleading. In the development next to mine, the actual water report said “can be made drinkable” but the ads to sell the land said “good water”. I guess it’s all in the interpretation of what is said.), such a claim is suspect. Plus, there are many ways to contaminate well water sources.
It may be worth observing that many wells in SW WY produce radon gas as a naturally occurring function of drilling through granite for access to a deep aquifer. It has nothing to do with “fracking”, it has to do with the fact granite is radioactive.
This is the problem with a legal approach to the sciences. No matter where you go, there you are. As Sam Clemens once said (sort of); “It ain’t the things ya know that’ll kill ya! It’s the things ya know that just ain’t so!”
You can’t confirm a negative.
These two statements effectively say the same thing:
Until such time as we know differently, hydraulic fracturing has not impacted drinking water resources. If, at some point in the future, evidence arises that hydraulic fracturing has impacted drinking water resources, it will contradict “what we’ve known all along.”
Sen. Inhofe could have worded his statement better and not afforded FactCheck.org an opportunity to label his assertion as false, based on a distinction without a difference fallacy.
BREAKING: Trump to appoint Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt as EPA head
Thanks, we missed that. 😉
Just in case anyone missed it, Trump has appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt as EPA head.
The Sierra Club speaks:
“Having Scott Pruitt in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is like putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires … He is a climate science denier who, as Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, regularly conspired with the fossil fuel industry to attack EPA regulations.”
The irony is so ironic… 😉
It’s even more ironic after considering the ground truth that many arsonists are current or former firefighters.
Nothing here surprises me. I’ve dealt with the same sort of behaviour from every green organization I’ve encountered in my years in the nuclear industry. I now mentally replace the word “activist” and “progressive” with “liar” whenever they come up. Expect FactCheck to continue referring to the original EPA report as the definitive facts on fracking especially in Pavilion even though there is countering factual evidence from the DEQ.
Don’t expect the EPA to get around to capping their wells real soon either.
John writes: ” I now mentally replace the word “activist” and “progressive” with “liar” whenever they come up.”
I prefer totalitarian socialist myself. Similar idea but I think my version has more “punch”.
Pruitt as head of EPA??? Man, we’re gonna start winning so much we’re gonna get sick of winning!
(nah, I don’t think that can happen. but I think it’s worth a try just to see if it can)
wws writes: “Man, we’re gonna start winning so much we’re gonna get sick of winning!”
Yep. That’s what happened when Clinton the First gave us GWB. We got cocky and it cost us all 20 trillion dollars. That’s so many zeros I’ll e long dead before I can count them.
Clinton the Second has given us Trump the first. Let’s not screw this up again? Becuase if it goes south again this time, Bernie is going to look like the Savior Incarnate. We don’t dare mess this up. So stay frosty.
While that’s in moderation, I’d appreciate it if you changed that lonely ‘e’ to ‘be’? And “Trump the first” should be “Trump the First”.
Thanks.
Bart.
Re 20 trillion dollar figure: the sun is only 15 trillion centimeters from earth. 20 trillion bucks Joined end to end would stretch out to go to the sun and back ten times. Talk about immoral.
Major Fake News episode by POTUS of the presidency that’s coming to an end: 97% of scientists think CAGW is real and dangerous. Wrong on 97% (whether the Cook butchery of statistics or the earlier version), and adding the dangerous bit.
CNN, another provider of fake news over the last 15 years: Christiane Amanpour, clearly narked by Trump’s victory, upped the ante to 99.9% of scientists when saying that “deniers” (her words – not mine) should not get even air time with 99.9% of scientists believing CAGW.
Look, if the “deniers” arguments are specious, that will come out. If the AGW arguments are specious that will come out. If both arguments have pluses and minuses then we have a continuing debate with both sides at the table.
If shutting down conversation is the best argument AGW proponents have, then they are the ones who should be denied air-time.
Many of the men who wrote The Bill of Rights were also involved in writing the US Constitution. I think they knew what they meant my “Congress” and “no law”.
Yet those words have been warped into “separation of Church and State” (minus the “or prohibiting”) and further warped to the point that HS football coach can’t have a voluntary prayer with his players on the football field and a private business has to a $100,000 fine because they chose not to bake a cake that went against their beliefs. (No, I’m not talking about those who refused to decorate a cake to honor a policeman, That was OK.)
This “fake news” stuff is just a salvo aimed at warping freedom of speech and of the press to mean “freedom of approved speech and of approved news”.
Those in power will those who do the approving.
Censorship of the internet is want they want. They don’t control it … yet.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Congress and other elected officials are restricted from establishing an official state religion, but they are not restricted from allowing people to voluntarily pray before a football game.
Unfortunately, the officials have the law just backwards. Allowing a voluntary prayer is not equivalent to establishng a state religion, and not allowing it IS “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
The officials, in an effort to abide by the first part, violate the second part.
This part of the law: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is never considered when this subject is brought up, even by most conservatives. They just accept that it is ok to restrict religious practices on public premises, even though the law does not support this practice.
There might be other reasons for restricting someone’s behavior in a public place, or on government property, but fear that allowing the behavior would establish a state religion is not valid. Allowing religious freedom is not the same as sponsoring religious freedom.
TA, That was an outstanding argument. Too many pluses to count. Thanks.
The argument against is that the coach as a public employee is acting as a proxy for the state and in his capacity and authority as a coach promoting a certain religious behavior. I think you make a compelling argument that this is still far from “establishing a state religion”. The coach is obviously not colluding with the state to establish a religion.
Furthermore should a Christian or for that matter any other faith stop being Christian or other adherent the moment they step on public property? What the founding fathers wrote is brilliant, unfortunately the wisdom and tolerance to understand those words is sorely lacking.
We definitely don’t want a state-sponsored religion. I think we can all agree on that. But we are not in danger of that happening.
All these restrictions on religion in the pubic space are being pushed, imo, by those who are anti-religion, and they use the fear of the establishment of a state-sponsored religion as their means to their ends. There is no chance that the state will establish a specific religion as the only acceptable religion, under our current system of governance. That would require a dictatorship.
A group of football players and their coach, who pray right before a football game is not the equivalent of establishing a state-religion, just as allowing a Muslim “call to prayer” to be broadcast in the public space, is not the establishment of a state-religion, on the part of those who allow it.
Gunga Din (a character I happen to admire from an epic poem by Kipling ) writes: “Yet those words have been warped into “separation of Church and State” (minus the “or prohibiting”) and further warped to the point that HS football coach can’t have a voluntary prayer with his players on the football field and a private business has to a $100,000 fine because they chose not to bake a cake that went against their beliefs.
I’m a Buddhist. No bones about it. That’s right up front.
I believe I should have freedom of association. If a large man in a brown shirt with insignias on his collar, jackboots, colorful patches on his sleeves and dress appears in my shop, I should have the right to refuse service if I do not wish to associate with him/her. It’s no sweat off his balls. He can find another vendor or change clothes. If a person deliberately offends me through dress, signage, speech, use of force, etc, I have the right to say “No thank you, please take your business elsewhere” and I deserve protection under the law. No offense is offered; only a refusal to work for a person I don’t want to work for. That’s my right.
I agree, freedom of association is a fundamental human right. It is your right to only serve Buddhists if you so choose. (even if it may not be good for business). The only entity that must serve everyone without exception is the government.
Freedom of association is not dependent on what is culturally acceptable or deplorable at any given time, it is total for everyone, otherwise it does not exist at all.
You don’t lose your human rights, just because you open a business.
Right to associate also includes the right not to associate.
As long as it’s not the state enforcing it, there is no problem.
Gunga, maybe I forgot to say “thanks”. So, thanks.
One of the many reasons our country (I was born here) needs to continue immigration (to the extent we can afford) is to maintain exactly the perspective you’ve advanced; that freedom is the birthright of every human. It’s what our country stands for.
Our country doesn’t stand for loads of useless mouths in search of feeding. Activists in search of validation, or terrorists in search of justification. People like yourself are not only encouraged, but welcome. I hope I’ve made a complex sentiment clear as I’m able.
Thank you for the the “thanks”.
Just to clear up what may be a misconception, I was also born and raised in the US. The screen name I use here is a CB handle someone dubbed me with about 35 years ago because I did the water/wastewater treatment.
But, yes, legal immigration is and should be welcome. Illegal? Well, that is “illegal”.
One of the things that made the US a country want others to come to and be a part of is that it really has been a “melting pot”. (A simplistic example but on Saint Patrick’s Day in the US, EVERYBODY that wants to be is “Irish” for a day.)
Melting Pot is not what the PC crowd means by “diversity and inclusion”.
Scott Pruitt better get his flackjacket on. He is going to be taking some serious fire from the Left in the future. The character assasination has just begun.
Yeah it is going to be bad, but I think the public is pretty fed-up with the lefts platform being 75% character assassination. It’s probably one of the major factors in why Clinton lost.
Pruitt has a lot of science and common sense on his side, if he can communicate that the science in fact does not support the hysteria he’ll do ok.
From what some leftists have been implying, I worry that the assignations won’t stop with at just character.
Factcheck, like other MSM sites, went all in for Hillary, and continue to do so. But they and the other faux fact checkers were proven to be wrong numerous times in the past. The reason they continue is not to try to get to any truth, but to provide ammunition for their base who hangs on every post as gospel.
Fake News, Definition – Does not agree with or support Left Wing Liberal ideology
You would think that the EPA would rely on previous studies that they were party to. Here’s a well written article from “The American Oil and Gas Reporter” authored by a Halliburton well completions expert. http://www.halliburton.com/public/pe/contents/Papers_and_Articles/web/A_through_P/AOGR%20Article-%20Data%20Prove%20Safety%20of%20Frac.pdf.
Here is the most pertinant paragraph (for this discussion) from this report:
“On May 5, 1995, Carol M. Browner,
then an EPA administrator and now energy
adviser to President Obama,stated, “There
is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing
at issue has resulted in any contamination
or endangerment of underground sources
of drinking water.”
At a state regulators conference in
Washington last February, Steve Heare,
director of EPA’s Drinking Water Protection
division said, “I have no information
that states are not doing a good job
already (of protecting water supplies).”
Despite claims by environmental organizations,
Heare also reported that he had
not seen any documented cases where
hydraulic fracturing was contaminating
water supplies”
Brian John writes: “Steve Heare, director of EPA’s Drinking Water Protection division said, “I have no information that states are not doing a good job already (of protecting water supplies).”
I’ll raise the issue of Flint Michigan, which seems to have been given a lot of press lately. How has the EPA or Michigan protected our water supplies?
I’m sorry if I seem cavalier; I’m not. I’m also not really “amused” in any way about Flint. But I’m astonished a fact checker hasn’t come down on these pocket rockets.
Oh heck. Would a Moderator please correct the runaway italic?
Thanks,
[done -mod]
The problem in Michigan was in a defective water delivery system.
I don’t know if that falls under the EPA, unless contaminated water was leaking from the pipes.
The magic word for environmental organizations is “could”. They twist “could have caused” into “it did cause” something.
Any changes to the environment causes something. Rational, ethical people look to find what the actual results are of those changes. Irrational ideologues really do not care. Their focus is ideology not knowledge.
What’s the difference between fake news, the LA Times, WH-directed fake science, and HuffPo? Not much
Hmmm, so using this logic an IPCC report says it is unlikely the rise in temperatures over the last century was caused by natural variation and/or likely caused by man. Then if anyone then states the IPCC reports shows that the warming was caused by man(i.e. not natural variation) that person has made a false claim.
Please, send all of these CAGW false claims to factcheck org so that they can publish stories showing the false claims, link to their story about this (fracking) false claim and say if one is false than so must be the other.
Side note, the worst one I ever saw was a claim Rush Limbaugh said something racist the “fact check” group in order to give it a partially true claim, first had to change the statement. The story was along the lines well he actually said this, but if he had said what was claimed then it would have been racist so it’s partially true.
Fear those who claim to be the determiners of truth.-ironargonaut
Good thing the legal system doesn’t require suspects on trial to prove they didn’t commit the crime. Very difficult to prove a negative.
That would be the French system of justice.
‘curating function’? Can Obama be that clueless as to how un-American that concept is? It is another name for state censorship. So why not go the extra mile and just make the state the only authorized news source. That might be great for dictatorships or communist and socialist countries, not so great for democracies.
Yes “distinction without a difference” fallacy is used quite often and does not fact check anything, other than ideological bias.
The shifting burden of proof is also common on these “fact checking” sites. The other side being unable to prove the unprovable does not prove ones argument. If that was the case fact-check being unable to prove they are possessed by demons on a mission from Satan is proof that they are indeed possessed.
Leftists believe that it is the role of government to protect us from ourselves.
That’s why they need so much power as well as the ability to monitor almost every aspect of our daily lives.
Of course they view themselves as being so much smarter and more ethical than the rest of us.
That’s why they are always exempt from the laws meant for the proles.
Here’s an interesting item regarding fake news:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/12/08/Convincing-people-of-fake-memories-is-surprisingly-easy/5141481147837/?spt=rln&or=1
Convincing people of fake memories is surprisingly easy
“WARWICK, England, Dec. 7 (UPI) — Memory is fallible and fragile. And as a team of scientists from the University of Warwick have helped prove, it is also surprisingly easy to manipulate.
More than 50 percent of participants in several ‘memory implantation’ studies recalled false memories as authentic. They came to incorporate fabricated events into their personal histories. . .”
The findings, detailed in the journal Memory, highlight the vulnerability of processes which rely heavily of memory, including forensic investigations, legal proceedings and therapy sessions. More broadly, the research presents the possibility of widespread delusion inspired by misinformation — like fake news propagated across social media platforms.
“The finding that a large portion of people are prone to developing false beliefs is important,” Kimberley Wade, a psychologist at Warwick, said in a news release. “We know from other research that distorted beliefs can influence people’s behaviors, intentions and attitudes.”
end excerpts
Maybe this has something to do with why otherwise intelligent people fall for the CAGW narrative, or the narrative of Leftwing politics. Some people are just too easily influenced. Even smart people. This is also why the News Media can be so dangerous to a free society if they lie to the people, like the current leftwing MSM does.
Sounds like “Little Critters” daycare.
Except in that case, people were convicted and sent to jail based on these false memories.
Time to reveal the TrueScience(tm) behind the rise of the word, FAKE. It is a newly minted modern Anglo-Saxon swear word. In a world increasingly devoid of mental effort, nuance of language and due diligence ‘fake’ has become the toss-off word of choice, when one wishes to devalue things without raising any expectation intricate explanation.
Use of the word FAKE also fulfills the ancient desire to spit on one’s opponent. Voicing the word, especially with emphasis, is certain to result in ejaculation of spittle.
Whenever you hear people in the news talking about ‘fake news’, imagine them saying instead ‘f*cking news’ with the same tone of voice, a virtue-signalling expression of personal resentment. You may conclude, as have I, that FAKE has become a modern swear word to replace F*CK. An you can even spell it outright without asses-to-risk. FAKE FAKE FAKE!
I am quite critical of “fact checkers,” but come on. This is just nonsense:
The burden of proof is on anyone claiming we know the answer to the question. If you we know fracking causes groundwater pollution, you need to prove it. If you say we know fracking doesn’t cause groundwater pollution, you need to prove it. The only thing which doesn’t require proof is saying, “We don’t know the answer yet.” That’s exactly what we see here:
This post claims that’s a “distinction without difference,” but it is not. A lack of suitable information on conditions prior to fracking can make it impossible to know with certainty what effect fracking has had. In that case, the answer is, “We don’t know.” The answer might be expanded to say, “But we think it unlikely fracking has had any impact.” That’s fine, but it is quite different from:
Saying we have no evidence pollution of the water has happened and it seems unlikely is in no way the same as saying we know pollution of the water has not happened. The “fact checker” is completely correct to note the distinction.
From a regulatory standpoint, there is a world of difference between the two positions.
Under one, you are permitted to do what you want, unless someone else proves that you are causing harm;
Under the second, you can’t do anything until you have proven that it won’t cause harm.
Of course the second is an impossible standard to meet, which is why the anti-development types always adopt it.