dailysignal--2020-08-07--The Washington Post’s ‘Fact Checker,’ Not Pence, Deserves the 4 Lying ‘Pinocchios’

Glenn Kessler , the so-called “ fact checker ” at The Washington Post , this week called out Vice President Mike Pence ’ s answer to an interview question about election fraud .
But it ’ s Kessler , not Pence , who deserves four “ Pinocchios ” for many of the misleading claims he makes about it in his column .
Pence said , “ Make no mistake about it .
The reality of voter fraud is undeniable .
We ’ ve seen case after case around the country where there have been prosecutions.
” Kessler concentrates on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former governor of that state—mentioned in passing , and the dispute is over the timing and exact details .
Fraudulent voter registrations were submitted by 12 individuals working for the Indiana Voter Registration Project , which , according to Kessler , was “ associated with Patriot Majority USA.
” Pence characterized the case as “ falsifying ballots.
” Charges were eventually dismissed against one of the defendants ; two pleaded guilty to perjury , but were given probation and no jail time ; and nine agreed to pretrial diversion deals , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Kessler , “ the cases were dismissed without prosecution.
” Kessler tries to characterize all of this as a minor incident because no one served any jail or prison time .
All that demonstrates is that all too often , defendants who commit election fraud are treated too lightly by judges and prosecutors .
He also doesn ’ t seem to understand what a pretrial diversion program is when he says the prosecutions were “ dismissed , ” as though that means prosecutors really didn ’ t have a case against them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : There was a prosecution .
He acknowledges that the defendants admitted their wrongdoing .
According to the IndyStar , they were given the privilege of participating in a pretrial diversion program in which they paid court costs , completed community service , and stayed out of legal trouble in “ return for having the charges dismissed.
” There was no conviction of these nine defendants , but there certainly was a prosecution .
The fact that the defendants were in a diversion program doesn ’ t erase the fact that they committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kessler also tries to minimize this fraud by claiming it is not really voter fraud and that no fraudulent ballots were submitted as a result of these fraudulent registrations .
But that ’ s only because election officials caught these false registrations before they could become effective .
That doesn ’ t make this type of fraud any less serious , since numerous cases show that election officials don ’ t always initially catch false registrations .
Kessler even cites The Heritage Foundation ’ s Election Fraud Database , claiming we only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ voter fraud.
” No , voter-registration fraud is election fraud .
And the term “ voter fraud ” covers all types of election fraud , whether it is committed by a voter or committed against a voter by others resulting in the dilution or theft of that voter ’ s vote .
Pence might have gotten the year this occurred wrong—it was 2016 , not 2012—and ballots may not have been falsified .
But voter-registration forms were falsified , and that could have led to falsified ballots if the improper registration forms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kessler also ignores the other cases of proven election fraud listed in Heritage ’ s database for Indiana , where false registrations that were not initially detected did , in fact , lead to fraudulent ballots being submitted .
That includes one Jerome Kesler ( who I ’ m sure is no relation ) who was convicted in 2017 of voting in Indiana from an Indiana address , even though he was a resident of Illinois .
There are more than 40 other instances of convictions in Indiana for false registrations where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t live .
In fact , there have been almost four dozen election-fraud cases in Indiana ( some with multiple convictions ) since 2003 , including numerous prosecutions in East Chicago , Indiana , over a Democratic mayoral primary that year .
That election was overturned by the state Supreme Court due to “ voluminous , widespread , and insidious ” absentee-ballot fraud .
That case also included convictions of voters who were voting in precincts where they didn ’ t actually reside .
The East Chicago case demonstrates one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the voters who are often preyed upon and whose votes are stolen , altered , forged , and forced .
Those targeted in East Chicago in “ a predatory pattern ” were “ first-time voters or others less informed or lacking in knowledge of the voting process , the infirm , the poor , and those with limited skills in the English language.
” That ’ s an important fact to keep in mind , given the current unwise push for all-mail elections .
Kessler even tries to minimize the perjury charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to for lying on the state-required affidavit , in which they affirmed under oath that they accepted the completed voter-registration form from an applicant .
He says there would “ have been no basis for a perjury charge ” if the defendants had used the federal voter-registration form instead of the state form because the federal form “ does not have the same affidavit.
” Really ?
Kessler seems to be unaware that it is a felony under federal law , 52 U.S.C .
§ 20511 , for individuals like the staff of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or submit “ voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false , fictitious , or fraudulent.
” There is a similar provision in the Voting Rights Act , 52 U.S.C .
§ 10307 .
Whether they were using the state or federal voter-registration form , they were breaking the law .
These two defendants are lucky that local prosecutors went after them , not federal prosecutors , because it ’ s highly likely they would not have gotten away with only probation , no jail time , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is correct when he said that “ the reality of voter fraud is undeniable ” and that “ we ’ ve seen case after case around the country where there have been prosecutions.
” In fact , Heritage ’ s database is up to almost 1,300 proven cases of election fraud .
And the database is by no means comprehensive ; it is just a sampling of cases .
There are many vulnerabilities in our system that too many people ignore .
If you don ’ t look for something , you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is the case with respect to too many officials pursuing election-fraud cases .
As the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2008 when it upheld Indiana ’ s voter-ID law , “ Indiana ’ s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor … demonstrate [ s ] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real , but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
” I guess , according to The Washington Post ’ s standards , the Supreme Court would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition of reality .

Glenn Kessler, the so-called “fact checker” at The Washington Post, this week called out Vice President Mike Pence’s answer to an interview question about election fraud. But it’s Kessler, not Pence, who deserves four “Pinocchios” for many of the misleading claims he makes about it in his column.
Pence said: “Make no mistake about it. The reality of voter fraud is undeniable. We’ve seen case after case around the country where there have been prosecutions.”
Kessler concentrates on a case in Indiana that the vice president—a former governor of that state—mentioned in passing, and the dispute is over the timing and exact details.
Fraudulent voter registrations were submitted by 12 individuals working for the Indiana Voter Registration Project, which, according to Kessler, was “associated with Patriot Majority USA.”
Pence characterized the case as “falsifying ballots.” Charges were eventually dismissed against one of the defendants; two pleaded guilty to perjury, but were given probation and no jail time; and nine agreed to pretrial diversion deals, in which they admitted their wrongdoing and, according to Kessler, “the cases were dismissed without prosecution.”
Kessler tries to characterize all of this as a minor incident because no one served any jail or prison time. All that demonstrates is that all too often, defendants who commit election fraud are treated too lightly by judges and prosecutors.
He also doesn’t seem to understand what a pretrial diversion program is when he says the prosecutions were “dismissed,” as though that means prosecutors really didn’t have a case against them.
What Kessler gets wrong is this: There was a prosecution. He acknowledges that the defendants admitted their wrongdoing.
According to the IndyStar, they were given the privilege of participating in a pretrial diversion program in which they paid court costs, completed community service, and stayed out of legal trouble in “return for having the charges dismissed.”
There was no conviction of these nine defendants, but there certainly was a prosecution. The fact that the defendants were in a diversion program doesn’t erase the fact that they committed voter registration fraud and were prosecuted for it.
Kessler also tries to minimize this fraud by claiming it is not really voter fraud and that no fraudulent ballots were submitted as a result of these fraudulent registrations.
But that’s only because election officials caught these false registrations before they could become effective.
That doesn’t make this type of fraud any less serious, since numerous cases show that election officials don’t always initially catch false registrations.
Kessler even cites The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, claiming we only categorize voting under a false registration as “voter fraud.” No, voter registration fraud is election fraud.
And the term “voter fraud” covers all types of election fraud, whether it is committed by a voter or committed against a voter by others resulting in the dilution or theft of that voter’s vote.
Pence might have gotten the year this occurred wrong—it was 2016, not 2012—and ballots may not have been falsified. But voter registration forms were falsified, and that could have led to falsified ballots if the improper registration forms had not been caught by election officials.
Kessler also ignores the other cases of proven election fraud listed in Heritage’s database for Indiana, where false registrations that were not initially detected did, in fact, lead to fraudulent ballots being submitted.
That includes one Jerome Kesler (who I’m sure is no relation) who was convicted in 2017 of voting in Indiana from an Indiana address, even though he was a resident of Illinois. There are more than 40 other instances of convictions in Indiana for false registrations where defendants voted in precincts where they didn’t live.
In fact, there have been almost four dozen election fraud cases in Indiana (some with multiple convictions) since 2003, including numerous prosecutions in East Chicago, Indiana, over a Democratic mayoral primary that year.
That election was overturned by the state Supreme Court due to “voluminous, widespread, and insidious” absentee ballot fraud. That case also included convictions of voters who were voting in precincts where they didn’t actually reside.
The East Chicago case demonstrates one of the unfortunate aspects of absentee ballot fraud; namely, the voters who are often preyed upon and whose votes are stolen, altered, forged, and forced.
Those targeted in East Chicago in “a predatory pattern” were “first-time voters or others less informed or lacking in knowledge of the voting process, the infirm, the poor, and those with limited skills in the English language.”
That’s an important fact to keep in mind, given the current unwise push for all-mail elections.
Kessler even tries to minimize the perjury charges that two of the defendants pleaded guilty to for lying on the state-required affidavit, in which they affirmed under oath that they accepted the completed voter registration form from an applicant.
He says there would “have been no basis for a perjury charge” if the defendants had used the federal voter registration form instead of the state form because the federal form “does not have the same affidavit.”
Really? Kessler seems to be unaware that it is a felony under federal law, 52 U.S.C. § 20511, for individuals like the staff of the Indiana Voter Registration Project to procure or submit “voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent.” There is a similar provision in the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10307.
Whether they were using the state or federal voter registration form, they were breaking the law. These two defendants are lucky that local prosecutors went after them, not federal prosecutors, because it’s highly likely they would not have gotten away with only probation, no jail time, or pretrial diversion programs.
The vice president is correct when he said that “the reality of voter fraud is undeniable” and that “we’ve seen case after case around the country where there have been prosecutions.”
In fact, Heritage’s database is up to almost 1,300 proven cases of election fraud. And the database is by no means comprehensive; it is just a sampling of cases.
There are many vulnerabilities in our system that too many people ignore. If you don’t look for something, you are not likely to find it, and that is the case with respect to too many officials pursuing election fraud cases.
As the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2008 when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, “Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor … demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
I guess, according to The Washington Post’s standards, the Supreme Court would get four “Pinocchios” for that recognition of reality.


dailysignal--2020-08-07--Voice of America’s One-Sided Coverage of Black Lives Matter Protests

Voice of America , the U.S. Agency for Global Media ’ s flagship operation , is putting its own spin on coverage of the Black Lives Matter riots in the United States .
It ’ s a spin consistent with much of the rest of the mainstream media—the CNNs of the world—and hardly represents an accurate image of what is going on in America today .
An Aug. 1 Associated Press story run by the VOA about events in Portland , Oregon , described the nature of the protests , which it said have now become so peaceful that federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protest Strives for Peace as U.S .
Forces Drawn Down.
” Want to watch more of our videos ?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel !
Just go here : https : //www.youtube.com/dailysignal In fact , the presence of federal agents comes across as provoking violence , and their removal as the way to calm the waters .
The demonstrations sound positive , even idyllic .
Despite the fact that the feds were actually invited in to stop explosive violence raging out of control in Portland , with the widespread destruction of property and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no mention of this constructive role in the story : A group identified as ‘ Firefighters for Black Lives Matter ’ gathered in a small park a couple miles west of the courthouse .
Another group , ‘ Unemployed Workers for Black Lives , ’ began to march towards the federal building around 8 p.m. People stood next to a makeshift memorial , with the pictures and names of Black people killed by police , at the Waterfront Park .
A parade of cars with Black Lives Matter signs taped to their windows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after midnight , the crowd had grown to over 1,000 people who remained outside chanting ‘ Black Lives Matter ’ and shouting the names of Black people killed by police .
Groups were also standing together engaging in conversations about social injustice .
The AP story is fairly typical of the coverage of race relations and Black Lives Matter at Voice of America .
Quoting lawmakers in the U.K. , New Zealand , and Australia debating racial inequities , the report found room for just one terse sentence about the reaction of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destruction of Civil War-era statues and other memorials , including those honoring Christopher Columbus , as an attempt to cleanse the U.S. of its history.
” Yet another story dealt with Trump ’ s objection to having the words “ Black Lives Matter ” painted in giant letters on the street in front of Trump Tower , a deliberate provocation by New York City officials .
“ The president is a disgrace to the values we cherish in New York City , ” Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s spokesperson , Julia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He can ’ t run or deny the reality we are facing , and any time he wants to set foot in the place he claims is his hometown , he should be reminded Black Lives Matter.
” The article gives de Blasio the last word , tweeting back at Trump , saying , “ Only warped minds equate the words ‘ Black Lives Matter ’ with violence .
It ’ s a movement to recognize and protect the lives of Black people.
” On and on it goes .
The viewpoints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles are those of demonstrators , protesters , and rioters , and indistinguishable from coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post .
Meanwhile , the violence of the riots , the vandalism against property and American history and culture , and the Marxist roots of Black Lives Matter are not covered .
American taxpayers fund Voice of America and the other news networks of the U.S. Agency for Global Media .
The very least they should ask for is balance in reporting , and they are not even getting that @

Voice of America, the U.S. Agency for Global Media’s flagship operation, is putting its own spin on coverage of the Black Lives Matter riots in the United States.
It’s a spin consistent with much of the rest of the mainstream media—the CNNs of the world—and hardly represents an accurate image of what is going on in America today.
An Aug. 1 Associated Press story run by the VOA about events in Portland, Oregon, described the nature of the protests, which it said have now become so peaceful that federal forces could be withdrawn: “Portland Protest Strives for Peace as U.S. Forces Drawn Down.”
Want to watch more of our videos? Subscribe to our YouTube channel! Just go here: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal
In fact, the presence of federal agents comes across as provoking violence, and their removal as the way to calm the waters. The demonstrations sound positive, even idyllic.
Despite the fact that the feds were actually invited in to stop explosive violence raging out of control in Portland, with the widespread destruction of property and lives as a consequence, there was no mention of this constructive role in the story:
A group identified as ‘Firefighters for Black Lives Matter’ gathered in a small park a couple miles west of the courthouse. Another group, ‘Unemployed Workers for Black Lives,’ began to march towards the federal building around 8 p.m. People stood next to a makeshift memorial, with the pictures and names of Black people killed by police, at the Waterfront Park. A parade of cars with Black Lives Matter signs taped to their windows slowed traffic in the city. Just after midnight, the crowd had grown to over 1,000 people who remained outside chanting ‘Black Lives Matter’ and shouting the names of Black people killed by police. Groups were also standing together engaging in conversations about social injustice.
The AP story is fairly typical of the coverage of race relations and Black Lives Matter at Voice of America.
Another headline: “US BLM Protests Drive Global Online Race Debate.”
Quoting lawmakers in the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia debating racial inequities, the report found room for just one terse sentence about the reaction of President Donald Trump: “Trump has described the destruction of Civil War-era statues and other memorials, including those honoring Christopher Columbus, as an attempt to cleanse the U.S. of its history.”
Yet another story dealt with Trump’s objection to having the words “Black Lives Matter” painted in giant letters on the street in front of Trump Tower, a deliberate provocation by New York City officials.
“The president is a disgrace to the values we cherish in New York City,” Mayor Bill de Blasio’s spokesperson, Julia Arredondo, is quoted as saying. “He can’t run or deny the reality we are facing, and any time he wants to set foot in the place he claims is his hometown, he should be reminded Black Lives Matter.”
The article gives de Blasio the last word, tweeting back at Trump, saying, “Only warped minds equate the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ with violence. It’s a movement to recognize and protect the lives of Black people.”
On and on it goes. The viewpoints generally expressed in these Voice of America articles are those of demonstrators, protesters, and rioters, and indistinguishable from coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, the violence of the riots, the vandalism against property and American history and culture, and the Marxist roots of Black Lives Matter are not covered.
American taxpayers fund Voice of America and the other news networks of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. The very least they should ask for is balance in reporting, and they are not even getting that.


dailysignal--2020-08-11--‘Do I Seem Rattled?’: Trump Calmly Describes Shooting Near White House

A few minutes into a press briefing Monday evening , President Donald Trump calmly walked away from the lectern after a Secret Service agent interrupted him and whispered a few words .
“ Excuse me , ” Trump said to reporters , and departed the White House briefing room without giving a reason .
Confusion ensued for about 10 minutes until , shortly after initial reports of a nearby shooting , Trump returned to the press room as calmly as he had abruptly left .
“ Sorry for that .
There was a shooting outside of the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under control , ” Trump told reporters .
“ I ’ d like to thank the Secret Service for doing their always quick and very effective work.
” “ There was an actual shooting , ” the president said .
“ Someone has been taken to the hospital .
I don ’ t know the condition of the person .
It seems the person was shot by Secret Service.
” Shortly before 8 p.m. , the Secret Service announced on Twitter that a male suspect and an officer were taken to a Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this incident was the White House complex breached or were any protectees in danger , ” the tweet said .
The shooting occurred along 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue , according to the agency .
As questions flew later , Trump stressed that he didn ’ t have any details .
“ It seems the shooting was done by law enforcement , ” the president said .
“ It was the suspect who was shot.
” One reporter asked : “ Are you rattled by this at all , Mr. President ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know , do I seem rattled ?
It ’ s unfortunate .
But the world has always been a dangerous place.
” He referred to Fox News Channel ’ s White House correspondent , John Roberts , who had been outside and reported hearing two shots .
Roberts later spoke up in the briefing , at Trump ’ s request , to say that the two shots were fired in close succession .
Roberts later reported that the incident occurred about 5:48 p.m. at the southeast corner of 17th Street and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House .
He said he “ heard two very loud pops in rapid succession.
” News footage showed uniformed officers appearing to administer aid to someone on the pavement .
When a reporter asked if the Secret Service had taken him to a White House bunker , Trump said he had gone back to the Oval Office .
“ You were surprised .
I was surprised also , ” he told reporters .
“ I think it ’ s pretty unusual , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very , very professional people .
They do a fantastic job.
” He said he was told that no law enforcement officers had been injured , and that the person who was shot had been armed .
“ I feel very safe with the Secret Service .
They are the best of the best , ” Trump added .
Asked why he came back to continue the briefing , Trump said : “ I didn ’ t even think about not coming back.
” His Secret Service detail told him he had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
At one point , Trump described the shooter as “ pretty close ” to the White House .
In response to a later question , he said , “ I don ’ t believe anything was breached ” and added that the person in question was “ relatively far away .
”

A few minutes into a press briefing Monday evening, President Donald Trump calmly walked away from the lectern after a Secret Service agent interrupted him and whispered a few words.
News outlets later reported the agent’s words: “We hear shots fired outside.”
“Excuse me,” Trump said to reporters, and departed the White House briefing room without giving a reason.
Want to watch more videos from The Daily Signal? Subscribe to our YouTube channel! Just click here: youtube.com/dailysignal
Confusion ensued for about 10 minutes until, shortly after initial reports of a nearby shooting, Trump returned to the press room as calmly as he had abruptly left.
“Sorry for that. There was a shooting outside of the White House, and it seems to be very well under control,” Trump told reporters. “I’d like to thank the Secret Service for doing their always quick and very effective work.”
“There was an actual shooting,” the president said. “Someone has been taken to the hospital. I don’t know the condition of the person. It seems the person was shot by Secret Service.”
Shortly before 8 p.m., the Secret Service announced on Twitter that an unidentified man and a Secret Service officer had been taken to a Washington hospital.
“At no time during this incident was the White House complex breached or were any protectees in danger,” the tweet said.
Update: the investigation into a USSS officer involved shooting is ongoing. A male subject and a USSS officer were both transported to a local hospital. At no time during this incident was the White House complex breached or were any protectees in danger. — U.S. Secret Service (@SecretService) August 10, 2020
The shooting occurred at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, according to the agency.
The Secret Service can confirm there has been an officer involved shooting at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Ave. Law enforcement officials are on the scene. More information to follow. — U.S. Secret Service (@SecretService) August 10, 2020
As reporters’ questions flew earlier, Trump stressed that he didn’t have any details.
“It seems the shooting was done by law enforcement,” the president said. “It was the suspect who was shot.”
One reporter asked: “Are you rattled by this at all, Mr. President?”
Trump quickly responded: “I don’t know, do I seem rattled? It’s unfortunate. But the world has always been a dangerous place.”
He referred to Fox News Channel’s White House correspondent, John Roberts, who had been outside and reported hearing two shots.
Roberts spoke up in the briefing, at Trump’s request, to say that the two shots were fired in close succession.
Roberts later reported that the incident occurred about 5:48 p.m. at the southeast corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, on the far side of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. He said he “heard two very loud pops in rapid succession.”
News footage showed uniformed officers appearing to administer aid to someone on the pavement.
When a reporter asked whether the Secret Service had taken him to a White House bunker, Trump said he had gone back to the Oval Office.
“He said, ‘Sir, could you please come with me?'” the president said, recalling the agent’s words.
“You were surprised. I was surprised also,” he told reporters. “I think it’s probably pretty unusual, but [the Secret Service agents are] very, very professional people. They do a fantastic job, as you know.”
He said he was told that no law enforcement officers had been injured, and that the person who was shot had been armed.
“I feel very safe with the Secret Service. They are the best of the best,” Trump added.
Asked why he came back to continue the briefing, Trump said: “I didn’t even think about not coming back.”
His Secret Service detail told him he had to wait a little while, the president said.
At one point, Trump described the shooter as “pretty close” to the White House. In response to a later question, he said, “I don’t believe anything was breached” and added that the person in question was “relatively far away.”
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.


dailysignal--2020-08-10--Investigating the Prevalence of Left-Leaning ‘Fact-Checkers’

A growing response to today ’ s chaotic information landscape sounds inviting and elegantly simple : Appoint experts to “ fact-check ” news stories , blogs , speeches , studies , opinions , and political ads .
Information they deem to be false is corrected or even removed from public view , in the name of the public good .
Since Donald Trump ’ s election these “ fact-checkers ” have gained increased prominence .
Pressure has mounted for news outfits and big tech companies—including Google , Facebook , and Twitter—to police political discourse .
At the same time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding that the tech giants back off such perceived censorship .
Tensions on both sides were on display last week as a House Judiciary subcommittee grilled top Silicon Valley executives .
That discord is likely to persist because in large part the fact-checking solution is illusory .
Many such efforts fail because they amount to a circular feedback loop of verification .
The fact-checkers are like-minded journalists or often liberal Silicon Valley gatekeepers , who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players exerts an oversized influence , using fact checks to shape and censor information .
Twitter recently sparked controversy by taking the unprecedented step of adding a disapproving “ fact-checking label ” to some of Trump ’ s tweets .
The social media site publicly explained that Trump ’ s May 26 posts contained what its fact-checkers deemed to be “ potentially misleading information about voting processes.
” Trump had said widespread mail-in ballots in the 2020 election would be “ substantially fraudulent.
” While the definition of “ substantially ” is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , in fact , has a long and ongoing history of ballot fraud .
Nevertheless , Twitter ’ s label warned that Trump ’ s claims were “ unsubstantiated according to CNN , Washington Post , and others … Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.
” Like many questionable “ fact checks ” at issue , Twitter ’ s critique wasn ’ t really a fact check at all .
It used past reporting from selected partisan news sources to claim that a prediction about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it even happens or doesn ’ t happen .
It was , in short , a Democratic Party talking point .
Google has stoked criticism for inserting its judgment and opinions between internet users and their search results .
In February , the search engine announced it was fighting “ disinformation ” about the coronavirus by partnering with the World Health Organization .
Google explained that user searches about COVID-19 would be directed to WHO ’ s online information .
One big problem : WHO itself was guilty of factual misinformation in multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted it had wrongly called the global risk of the virus emanating from China virus “ moderate ” at a time when it had actually been “ very high.
” Critics say the partnership with WHO reflects a trend by Big Tech fact-checkers to present often controversial global organizations as nonpartisan purveyors of objective fact .
Over at Facebook , censorship of accounts and ideas has included a fact check of a documentary about the lab in Wuhan , China , that was under investigation as a possible source of the COVID-19 outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false.
” But an investigation by this reporter revealed that one of the authorities Facebook referenced in discrediting the documentary was a scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab .
Facebook did not respond to an emailed request for an interview with CEO Mark Zuckerberg or a representative .
Fact-checking organizations have grappled internally with the obvious but usually unspoken challenge in all such efforts : It is unrealistic to expect that any appointed group of fact-checkers has true expertise on all of the topics they litigate .
Yet they do so every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump tweets illustrate , today ’ s brand of “ fact-checking ” is rarely cut and dry , such as verifying the date an event occurred .
Now , fact checks are frequently used to litigate matters of opinion or debate , and to proclaim the truth about facts that are unknown , or can not possibly be known , at the time .
They commonly provide what they call the “ context ” they claim is necessary to assess a factual claim , rather than a simple assessment of whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result , many factually correct statements are deemed to be “ half true ” or “ mostly false.
” Keeping this in mind , the biggest inherent flaw with efforts to fact-check information may lie in the qualifications , bias , and conflicts of interest among the ranks of the fact-checkers themselves .
One example is the fact-checking nonprofit First Draft , started by Google at the beginning of the 2016 election cycle .
Google is owned by Alphabet , Inc .
Alphabet executives and employees comprise a politically active group that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in the country .
During the 2016 campaign , Alphabet was led by an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer , Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt .
First Draft is also supported by an array of liberal companies and nonprofits , including the Ford Foundation and George Soros ’ Open Society Foundations .
First Draft tends to fact-check topics in a vein that ’ s consistent with its major donors ’ opinions and interests .
This is particularly true when it comes to controversies about vaccine safety and climate change , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to opposing scientific views and information .
In April , First Draft uncritically referred readers to an article perpetuating the false story that Trump had literally encouraged “ people to drink bleach.
” Among the group ’ s original organizers is its digital director , Alastair Reid , who has frequently tweeted and retweeted anti-American rhetoric and progressive positions .
For its part , First Draft says “ certain projects and initiatives may be guided in part by the specific requirements of our funding partnerships ” but “ our donors understand that First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our decisions are driven by the organization ’ s mission and values.
” Similar issues surround NewsGuard , an internet browser tool that rates the trustworthiness of news sources on search engines and social media sites .
Created in 2018 , it is funded in part by one of the largest PR , advertising , and data collection firms in the world : Publicis Groupe .
Publicis is active on the progressive side of major issues and controversies from gender to race and climate .
NewsGuard states that besides its founders Steven Brill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play no role in the determination of ratings.
” Its analysts have given a green light of trust to openly partisan sources such as Media Matters for America .
Last November , NewsGuard reached out to RealClearInvestigations , questioning its use of anonymous sources to reveal the identity of an intelligence community “ whistleblower ” whose allegations helped lead to Trump ’ s impeachment .
But when RealClearInvestigations asked NewsGuard if it was posing similar queries about use of anonymous leaks by other news organizations , such as The New York Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and BuzzFeed , NewsGuard did not reply .
The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining Facebook ’ s new oversight board , which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts .
According to Facebook , members of the oversight board “ were chosen for their expertise and diversity ” and “ must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.
” They all “ have expertise in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights.
” But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook ’ s oversight board members have ties to Soros ’ Open Society Foundations , which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion , gender , and racial policies .
The pervasive Soros connections on Facebook ’ s oversight board may be no more than a matter of odds .
Soros is such a prolific financier among global groups that advocate for positions he supports that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chosen fact-checkers are primarily activists and advocates for progressive positions .
The result is a group whose expressed viewpoints and causes are far from neutral .
By contrast , however , no members of the Facebook board have known public positions on the conservative side of hot-button controversies .
One measure of the problems in “ objective ” fact-checking is the vastly disparate treatment accorded to two of the most established partisan outfits—the conservative Media Research Center and the liberal Media Matters .
Founded in 1987 by Brent Bozell , the Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watchdog , and uses a blog called “ Newsbusters ” to call out what it views as liberal bias in the mainstream media .
Media Matters is a nonprofit founded in 2004 by right-wing operative-turned-left-wing operative David Brock as a counterpoint to the Media Research Center .
Today , it ’ s linked to a web of political action committees , nonprofits , LLCs , and other groups that partner to advance their agendas in the news .
So the two groups are bookends in the increasingly partisan media landscape .
But they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called objective press .
The liberal Media Matters is is frequently relied upon by journalism organizations and the mainstream media as if it were an accurate , nonpartisan source of news and information .
An extensive search found no such treatment accorded to the Media Research Center .
The credibility afforded to Media Matters by some appears to have evolved over time .
Back in 2009 , the Columbia Journalism Review called out Media Matters for a “ falsehood , ” citing a deceptive claim and press release .
But fast forward to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article in the same publication places Media Matters ’ “ editor-at-large ” Parker Molloy among a group of “ journalists , legal analysts and other experts ” —without disclosing the controversial group ’ s partisan affiliation .
The article goes on to quote Molloy as claiming there is “ honestly no reason to believe there ’ s some sort of liberal/progressive bias at social-media companies.
” He adds , “ Conservatives are really just trying to ‘ work the refs ’ as a way to push these companies into adopting a pro-conservative bias.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans alike have stepped forward to say they have issues with some of today ’ s fact-checking and censorship efforts ahead of the 2020 election .
But they differ on which political side they think has the edge , or what should be done about it .
Democrats tend to press for more censorship .
Republicans are pushing to lift liability protections for social media platforms that engage in heavy-handed tactics to limit or shape content .
The Department of Justice recently issued recommendations to reform the law .
It includes ideas to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing transparency regarding the decisions , and addressing the concentration of information in the hands of just a few .
Sens .
John Thune , a South Dakota Republican , and Brian Schatz , a Democrat from Hawaii , recently introduced the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act , or the PACT Act .
It would require Google , Facebook , Twitter , and other online platforms to disclose their practices when it comes to how they shape and moderate content .
It would also subject them to certain civil lawsuits they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other hand , eliminating liability protections could result in furthering the public perception that Big Tech is controlling what they are allowed to see and read , as companies could reasonably argue that they would have a heightened obligation to censor even more information due to the risk of being sued .
For now , the trend to “ fact-checking ” information the public accesses online and on the news is gaining momentum approaching the 2020 election .
The evidence indicates the backgrounds and interests of those involved in the effort are serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact-challenged information landscape .

Editor’s note: We have added a response from NewsGuard to this article.
A growing response to today’s chaotic information landscape sounds inviting and elegantly simple: Appoint experts to “fact-check” news stories, blogs, speeches, studies, opinions, and political ads. Information they deem to be false is corrected or even removed from public view, in the name of the public good.
Since Donald Trump’s election these “fact-checkers” have gained increased prominence. Pressure has mounted for news outfits and big tech companies—including Google, Facebook, and Twitter—to police political discourse.
At the same time, many people, notably conservatives, are demanding that the tech giants back off such perceived censorship. Tensions on both sides were on display last week as a House Judiciary subcommittee grilled top Silicon Valley executives.
That discord is likely to persist because in large part the fact-checking solution is illusory. Many such efforts fail because they amount to a circular feedback loop of verification. The fact-checkers are like-minded journalists or often liberal Silicon Valley gatekeepers, who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies. This small group of players exerts an oversized influence, using fact checks to shape and censor information.
Twitter recently sparked controversy by taking the unprecedented step of adding a disapproving “fact-checking label” to some of Trump’s tweets. The social media site publicly explained that Trump’s May 26 posts contained what its fact-checkers deemed to be “potentially misleading information about voting processes.”
Trump had said widespread mail-in ballots in the 2020 election would be “substantially fraudulent.” While the definition of “substantially” is in the eye of the beholder, the United States, in fact, has a long and ongoing history of ballot fraud.
Nevertheless, Twitter’s label warned that Trump’s claims were “unsubstantiated according to CNN, Washington Post, and others … Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”
Like many questionable “fact checks” at issue, Twitter’s critique wasn’t really a fact check at all. It used past reporting from selected partisan news sources to claim that a prediction about what could happen in the future is untrue—before it even happens or doesn’t happen. It was, in short, a Democratic Party talking point.
Google has stoked criticism for inserting its judgment and opinions between internet users and their search results. In February, the search engine announced it was fighting “disinformation” about the coronavirus by partnering with the World Health Organization. Google explained that user searches about COVID-19 would be directed to WHO’s online information.
One big problem: WHO itself was guilty of factual misinformation in multiple instances. For example, the agency admitted it had wrongly called the global risk of the virus emanating from China virus “moderate” at a time when it had actually been “very high.”
Critics say the partnership with WHO reflects a trend by Big Tech fact-checkers to present often controversial global organizations as nonpartisan purveyors of objective fact.
Over at Facebook, censorship of accounts and ideas has included a fact check of a documentary about the lab in Wuhan, China, that was under investigation as a possible source of the COVID-19 outbreak. Facebook claimed the documentary was “false.”
But an investigation by this reporter revealed that one of the authorities Facebook referenced in discrediting the documentary was a scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab.
Facebook did not respond to an emailed request for an interview with CEO Mark Zuckerberg or a representative.
Who’s Pulling Strings and Calling Shots?
Fact-checking organizations have grappled internally with the obvious but usually unspoken challenge in all such efforts: It is unrealistic to expect that any appointed group of fact-checkers has true expertise on all of the topics they litigate. Yet they do so every day.
As the labels applied to the Trump tweets illustrate, today’s brand of “fact-checking” is rarely cut and dry, such as verifying the date an event occurred.
Now, fact checks are frequently used to litigate matters of opinion or debate, and to proclaim the truth about facts that are unknown, or cannot possibly be known, at the time. They commonly provide what they call the “context” they claim is necessary to assess a factual claim, rather than a simple assessment of whether a statement is correct or incorrect.
As a result, many factually correct statements are deemed to be “half true” or “mostly false.”
Keeping this in mind, the biggest inherent flaw with efforts to fact-check information may lie in the qualifications, bias, and conflicts of interest among the ranks of the fact-checkers themselves.
One example is the fact-checking nonprofit First Draft, started by Google at the beginning of the 2016 election cycle. Google is owned by Alphabet, Inc. Alphabet executives and employees comprise a politically active group that ranks among the largest political donors to Democrats in the country. During the 2016 campaign, Alphabet was led by an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and campaign volunteer, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt.
First Draft is also supported by an array of liberal companies and nonprofits, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. First Draft tends to fact-check topics in a vein that’s consistent with its major donors’ opinions and interests. This is particularly true when it comes to controversies about vaccine safety and climate change, where First Draft appears to give little consideration to opposing scientific views and information.
In April, First Draft uncritically referred readers to an article perpetuating the false story that Trump had literally encouraged “people to drink bleach.” Among the group’s original organizers is its digital director, Alastair Reid, who has frequently tweeted and retweeted anti-American rhetoric and progressive positions.
For its part, First Draft says “certain projects and initiatives may be guided in part by the specific requirements of our funding partnerships” but “our donors understand that First Draft retains operational and editorial independence. Our decisions are driven by the organization’s mission and values.”
Similar issues surround NewsGuard, an internet browser tool that rates the trustworthiness of news sources on search engines and social media sites. Created in 2018, it is funded in part by one of the largest PR, advertising, and data collection firms in the world: Publicis Groupe. Publicis is active on the progressive side of major issues and controversies from gender to race and climate.
NewsGuard states that besides its founders Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, “other investors play no role in the determination of ratings.” Its analysts have given a green light of trust to openly partisan sources such as Media Matters for America.
Last November, NewsGuard reached out to RealClearInvestigations, questioning its use of anonymous sources to reveal the identity of an intelligence community “whistleblower” whose allegations helped lead to Trump’s impeachment. But when RealClearInvestigations asked NewsGuard if it was posing similar queries about use of anonymous leaks by other news organizations, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, and BuzzFeed, NewsGuard did not reply.
Editor’s note: NewsGuard co-CEO Steven Brill reached out to The Daily Signal, and sent this statement in response to the article:
It is particularly absurd to have left out that NewsGuard has given high Green ratings to multiple conservative sites, including your own. It is equally absurd and unfair to imply that NewsGuard follows the dictates of one investor, whose clients include some drug companies, when the evidence—such as NewsGuard giving a Green rating to sites that are sharply critical of those companies (or my own journalism related to drug companies)—demonstrates exactly the opposite. And mixing us in with the practices of the social media platforms is just plain ridiculous, when it fact we started our company to establish the exact opposite practices of these platforms and many of their fact checking processes: Unlike them, we’re accountable, transparent, and demonstrably apolitical. If not, why would you feature our rating of The Daily Signal on your own website?
The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining Facebook’s new oversight board, which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts.
According to Facebook, members of the oversight board “were chosen for their expertise and diversity” and “must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.” They all “have expertise in, or experience in advocating for, human rights.”
But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook’s oversight board members have ties to Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion, gender, and racial policies.
The pervasive Soros connections on Facebook’s oversight board may be no more than a matter of odds. Soros is such a prolific financier among global groups that advocate for positions he supports that his name is bound to turn up when the chosen fact-checkers are primarily activists and advocates for progressive positions.
The result is a group whose expressed viewpoints and causes are far from neutral. By contrast, however, no members of the Facebook board have known public positions on the conservative side of hot-button controversies.
Genesis
One measure of the problems in “objective” fact-checking is the vastly disparate treatment accorded to two of the most established partisan outfits—the conservative Media Research Center and the liberal Media Matters.
Founded in 1987 by Brent Bozell, the Media Research Center characterizes itself as a media watchdog, and uses a blog called “Newsbusters” to call out what it views as liberal bias in the mainstream media.
Media Matters is a nonprofit founded in 2004 by right-wing operative-turned-left-wing operative David Brock as a counterpoint to the Media Research Center. Today, it’s linked to a web of political action committees, nonprofits, LLCs, and other groups that partner to advance their agendas in the news.
So the two groups are bookends in the increasingly partisan media landscape. But they are not treated the same by the so-called objective press. The liberal Media Matters is is frequently relied upon by journalism organizations and the mainstream media as if it were an accurate, nonpartisan source of news and information. An extensive search found no such treatment accorded to the Media Research Center.
The credibility afforded to Media Matters by some appears to have evolved over time. Back in 2009, the Columbia Journalism Review called out Media Matters for a “falsehood,” citing a deceptive claim and press release.
But fast forward to June 4, 2020, and an article in the same publication places Media Matters’ “editor-at-large” Parker Molloy among a group of “journalists, legal analysts and other experts”—without disclosing the controversial group’s partisan affiliation.
The article goes on to quote Molloy as claiming there is “honestly no reason to believe there’s some sort of liberal/progressive bias at social-media companies.” He adds, “Conservatives are really just trying to ‘work the refs’ as a way to push these companies into adopting a pro-conservative bias.”
What to Do?
Democrats and Republicans alike have stepped forward to say they have issues with some of today’s fact-checking and censorship efforts ahead of the 2020 election. But they differ on which political side they think has the edge, or what should be done about it.
Democrats tend to press for more censorship. Republicans are pushing to lift liability protections for social media platforms that engage in heavy-handed tactics to limit or shape content.
The Department of Justice recently issued recommendations to reform the law. It includes ideas to strengthen censorship of content deemed harmful, providing transparency regarding the decisions, and addressing the concentration of information in the hands of just a few.
Sens. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, recently introduced the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, or the PACT Act. It would require Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other online platforms to disclose their practices when it comes to how they shape and moderate content. It would also subject them to certain civil lawsuits they are currently exempted from.
On the other hand, eliminating liability protections could result in furthering the public perception that Big Tech is controlling what they are allowed to see and read, as companies could reasonably argue that they would have a heightened obligation to censor even more information due to the risk of being sued.
For now, the trend to “fact-checking” information the public accesses online and on the news is gaining momentum approaching the 2020 election. The evidence indicates the backgrounds and interests of those involved in the effort are serving to complicate rather than purify an increasingly fact-challenged information landscape.
Originally published by RealClearInvestigations