Google's New 'Fact-Checker' Is Partisan Garbage
(too old to reply)
Leroy N. Soetoro
2018-06-05 20:02:31 UTC

In the midst of the “fake news” hysteria last year, Google launched a
project to help curate reliable information for its readers by identifying
articles and sites that need fact-checking. And this may come as a
surprise to some of you, but it looks like the tech giant’s truth project
is imbued with a tiny bit of ideological and political bias.

Eric Lieberman at The Daily Caller recently found that the fact checks
displayed in Google’s search engine results are targeted almost
exclusively at conservative publications. You can test it out yourself.

Now, you may believe that conservatives are hopeless liars in need of
relentless correcting, so I’ll concede the point for argument’s sake. Even
then, you’d have to admit it’s a small miracle that, according to Google’s
search engine, not a single prominent liberal or mainstream site in the
entire universe has ever uttered a dubious or questionable claim.

Luckily for us, there are methods available to analyze the veracity of
Google’s project. One way, for example, is to take a “reviewed claim” made
against The Federalist, the site I happen to know best, and contrast it to
the coverage of other sites.

Consider the case of a woman named Eileen Wellstone. Out of many thousands
of pieces published by The Federalist over the past four years, a single
one mentions the name Eileen Wellstone. That article, detailing the sordid
history of Bill Clinton, mentions her name exactly once: “Another woman,
Eileen Wellstone, claimed Clinton raped her while he was at Oxford
University in the late 1960s.”

For some reason, in this “reviewed claim” against The Federalist, Google
sends the reader to a Snopes fact-check that argues that Clinton wasn’t
expelled from Oxford over this alleged rape — a point I concede sounds
completely accurate and is also an assertion that no one has ever made in
this publication.

So the question is, does Google tag every article that relays accusations
of sexual misconduct or rape as “unproven,” or just the ones against Bill
Clinton? Or is the mention of Wellstone specifically worthy of a claim?
The Wellstone case has not only been cited in all types of publications
(and not in efforts to debunk it, either; 1,2,3,4,5, and so on) but by The
Washington Post’s own fact-checker.

In a 2016 article detailing allegations against Bill Clinton that might be
brought up by then-candidate Donald Trump, WaPo notes, “Eileen Wellstone
says she was assaulted by Clinton when he was a student at Oxford
University in 1969.” There is virtually no difference between that
statement and the one published in The Federalist. Not that Google search
engines users would know this when they search for the influential

Or take another purported fact-check regarding climate change, which
creates the impression that there’s something inaccurate about a specific
arguable claim because the larger notions about the topic happen to be

What’s most amusing about this fact-check is that Google sends people who
searched for “The Federalist” to an article correcting a claim made by
someone on CNN, an outlet that, somehow, even though they apparently
feature contributors who make questionable claims about science, is spared
from search-engine truth-police grilling.

Moreover, the quote featured in the “reviewed claim” section is not even
in The Federalist article. Google’s go-to site, Climate Feedback, an
ideologically motivated site itself, argues that “Observed warming since
the 1970s is consistent with climate model projections.” This is at the
very least an arguable contention. Feel free to use your Google search
engine to find thousands of pieces debating the accuracy modeling over the
decades. This seems to be a normal, appropriate, and completely scientific
debate to be engaged in.

More importantly, the article’s position is that the “alarmist” partisans
cherry-pick projections hoping to scaremonger voters into making political
decisions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that climate change isn’t
happening. Then again, once you begin reading through the fact-check,
you’ll quickly notice that it’s not really debunking The Federalist’s
assertion at all (The Federalist is once again never even mentioned in the
fact-check that allegedly debunks The Federalist); the participants are
simply claiming that models, in general, have been correct that it’s
getting hotter overall — which does not conflict with anything the article

But if it rings true, it is true, I guess.

In theory, opinion sites will offer more speculation about what events and
policy mean. These claims are prone to be challenged, and they should be.
That’s part of our discourse. But as Lieberman points out, the Google
fact-checking itself is often unconvincing and offered by biased sources.

Take the other “unproven” charge against The Federalist. This one, also by
Snopes, claims to debunk an article that argues that vandals burned down a
century-old bust of Abraham Lincoln in Chicago in broader protests about
Confederate statues. Again, that wasn’t what the article argued. It argued
that the vandalism — a term used by an alderman in Chicago, as well — was
part of a broader effort to tear down “history” and monuments. Since a
number of statues, including the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, had also
been vandalized right around the same time, it’s certainly not out of
bounds for a columnist to treat these incidents as a trend.

But if this is the standard for corrections and dissuading people from
visiting a site, what possible reason could there be for left-wing sites
that regularly make arguable or false assertions about economics, history,
science, and politics, like Vox and ThinkProgress and many others, to be
spared from this fact-checking? It’s one thing for us to read publications
through filters. We do it all the time. But it’s another for a search
engine to manipulate perceptions about those sites — and only conservative
ones — before people even read them.

(Update 10/12: Google’s ‘fact-checker’ has removed two of the above claims
– leaving the third claim, which I concede is the most speculative. Now
let’s see it hold other sites to the same standard.)

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of
the forthcoming book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring
History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party ran out of gas and got run over by a Trump

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for cleaning up the disaster
of the Obama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.

ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.

Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.
David DeLaney
2018-06-06 02:06:20 UTC
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
... the Federalist? really, dear?
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
In the midst of the ??fake news?? hysteria last year, Google launched a
project to help curate reliable information for its readers by identifying
articles and sites that need fact-checking. And this may come as a
surprise to some of you, but it looks like the tech giant??s truth project
is imbued with a tiny bit of ideological and political bias.
Well sure ... but that's because it's well-known that reality has a distinct
liberal bias. Change happens; things don't stay eternally static; the past was
not a Golden Age from which we are degenerating and have to get back to at all
costs. Truth follows reality; reality doesn't change to conform to what someone
decides SHOULD be true. Check your sources and their biases. Do double-blind
experiments where possible; remember Blondin's N-rays.

[major blathering snippety]

Dave "a.f.u has received your submission; unfortunately, it does not meet our
pubication needs or requirements at this time. we do wish you luck, and
insight, in your future endeavours" DeLaney

ps: SEVERAL newsgroups snipped so NNTP doesn't choke and die. sorry, Tennesee!
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.