Facts in Check
You just need to find someone who thinks bias conforms with results to check a fact. Journalists verifying their semi-co-workers’ astoundingly dubious claims make their quasi-industry even more shameful. Citing people who always happen to agree with their oh so balanced worldviews is a nice touch. Naturally, they don’t realize they’re doing it.
Democratic press agents planted rather openly behind what they pretend to be enemy lines are renowned for never being biased, so we can trust them to issue truth with infallibility. If they’re pushing their own beliefs as indisputable actualities, that would mean their entire industry is a joke of a sham, and that’s just another alleged fact that can’t be true. Check the facts about fact-checking, as the absurdity of feigning objectivity passes through yet another useless checkpoint.
One special section of the ether paper is dedicated to backing opinions expressed as truth dictated by the supernatural being of your choice. The purported verification is just as slanted as the original. Well, I see no way anyone can disagree. Claims go through layers, which means conclusions are certain unless all those involved are partisan hacks working for the White House on an unofficial volunteer basis. I confirmed Subway is delicious with a franchise owner.
Asserting their quite contentious notions as entirely accurate just causes further embarrassment. You’d think trying to get ideas right in the first place seems easier. But, like mobsters who toil constantly to steal instead of creating their own products, journalists think they’re beating the system.
Please validate my claims. The truth doesn’t need to be restated out of insecurity. By contrast, those upset at math and human nature for ruining their glorious mandatory schemes crave gold stars to slap on their preposterous classifications of reality. Very reasonable types who think cops can’t be trusted to enforce laws properly think someone who works at the same paper has cosmic truth on their side.
A notoriously unbiased press explains why everything liberals believe is to be accepted as gospel if you had heretical doubts. They sure are condescending snobs for journalism majors who write poorly for a semi-living.
Those churning it out must be exhausted by the rhetorical framing. They love focusing on how they intend their precious policies to function instead of how much carnage and debt they cause in practice. Parroting the initial silly notion is treated as proof.
The case is closed except for the open bit. Another layer of mendacious reporting is designed to end the argument. There’s no need to examine any further. The only thing worse than letting someone untrustworthy back you up is if that someone is Glenn Kessler.
An expert is someone with a degree who agrees with you. Reporters on the fact beat tirelessly seek out people with credentials to their liking for affirmation. Those entrenched in a perniciously useless business might believe nonsense about alleged facts to which they’ve clung for as long as they’ve tried to ruin lives through politics. In fact, subjectivity is more likely the more people with the same opinions research the statements in question. They claim this is false.
The subset of communications majors are arbiters of absolute truth in the same sense the Heaven’s Gate guy was the messiah. Laughing at anyone who tries to win an argument by citing Snopes is one of the few moments of levity in this rather dumb era. Naturally, laughter is provoked inadvertently.
It’s rare to even hear of mundane fact checks like New Yorker-style verification of coffee size. The increasingly irrelevant embodiment of a snotty magazine would now rather be known for pimping partisan narratives that are tougher to disprove.
Don’t say silly things if social media drones voted for your foe. Twitter decided Donald Trump’s preposterous claims of winning an election must be labeled while Hillary Clinton’s preposterous claims of winning an election are allowed to fester. No: our side’s lunacy is justified. Stacey Abrams is a liar by evidence, which you wouldn’t know based on the lack of disclaimers.
Fact-checking is the preferred job category of those who can’t even do internet searches to find fundamental truth. The absurd notion that someone at a publication known for thinking Joe Biden knows what he’s doing will accurately classify preposterous claims resembles how they see science as a faith. Gathering information is a ceaseless process, which surprises those who act as if closing cases means they respect the process.
It’s unsurprising that those citing fact checks as immaculate also worship an attention whore of an oscillating hypocrite like Anthony Fauci. Working for the government carries the imprimatur of superiority for a certain type of sucker.
As with endless claims of forthcoming doom for anyone who managed to chew through the duct tape holding on their masks, fact-checking is the flabby exercise of finding a partisan ally who makes claims aligning with their ideology.
Smugly proclaiming the debate’s end has precisely nothing to do with indifferent results. Checking fact-checkers throws them off, so don’t irritate prophets.
