It appears that you lack reading comprehension to understand the content of the article. What it says is that many of these "facts" are just definitions that liberals come up with to spin a narrative.
When Kamala Harris says “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century,” she believes it. She believes it because she has battalions of lawyers carefully defining what a combat zone is, what a war zone is, even what active duty means, what “boots on the ground” means — even what “ground” means.
The fact-checking is actually just plain old gaslighting, and everybody can see that.
How dare you imply that < US government/oligarch funded news sources> would be pushing an agenda! These are just neutral facts, delivered in the most passive voice possible.
Wow, you just assume I didn't read an article. Nothing in the opinion piece says anything of substance. It's saying don't bother because it's a nuisance. If we don't fact check, than lies are put out as fact. If Harris lied, call her out, if Trump lied, call him out. They are pesididential candidates, they should be held to higher standards than some random Youtuber.
If I say Australia landed on the moon last night, and no one checks the story out, are people to assume I told the truth? If No one checks out stories and opinions, than anything becomes a reality that just simply doesn't exist.
The article is saying that fact checks don't help, when the candidates rule lawyer their way into turning a false statement into a fact.
By any objective measure Kamala Harris's comment about no US troops being in a war zone is false. Fact checkers say its true, because a bunch of Adderall addled lanyards have redefined the key words in this statement to make it technically true.
By any objective measure, a fact checker should be taking Kamala to task for repeating propaganda about October 7th. But no one will.
I don't think this article objects to candidates being factual, as much as it points out that what our media does is not actually checking facts.
I didn't assume anything, I pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument.
If I say Australia landed on the moon last night, and no one checks the story out, are people to assume I told the truth? If No one checks out stories and opinions, than anything becomes a reality that just simply doesn’t exist.
This is not what the article is talking about. It explicitly talks about using language to obscure facts. If you actually read the article and this was your takeaway from it, then it's clear that you have incredibly poor reading comprehension.
No it's not. Facts are facts. That's all there is. If you don't fact check, you let lies run rampant.
Sure hasn't stopped Democrats from enthusiastically supporting Israel despite the latter being constantly caught lying.
It's almost like letting lies run rampant is perfectly fine for Democrats if it helps them and their allies.
It appears that you lack reading comprehension to understand the content of the article. What it says is that many of these "facts" are just definitions that liberals come up with to spin a narrative.
The fact-checking is actually just plain old gaslighting, and everybody can see that.
How dare you imply that < US government/oligarch funded news sources> would be pushing an agenda! These are just neutral facts, delivered in the most passive voice possible.
🤣
Wow, you just assume I didn't read an article. Nothing in the opinion piece says anything of substance. It's saying don't bother because it's a nuisance. If we don't fact check, than lies are put out as fact. If Harris lied, call her out, if Trump lied, call him out. They are pesididential candidates, they should be held to higher standards than some random Youtuber.
If I say Australia landed on the moon last night, and no one checks the story out, are people to assume I told the truth? If No one checks out stories and opinions, than anything becomes a reality that just simply doesn't exist.
The article is saying that fact checks don't help, when the candidates rule lawyer their way into turning a false statement into a fact.
By any objective measure Kamala Harris's comment about no US troops being in a war zone is false. Fact checkers say its true, because a bunch of Adderall addled lanyards have redefined the key words in this statement to make it technically true.
By any objective measure, a fact checker should be taking Kamala to task for repeating propaganda about October 7th. But no one will.
I don't think this article objects to candidates being factual, as much as it points out that what our media does is not actually checking facts.
I didn't assume anything, I pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument.
This is not what the article is talking about. It explicitly talks about using language to obscure facts. If you actually read the article and this was your takeaway from it, then it's clear that you have incredibly poor reading comprehension.
Deffies strike again.