|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
When you hear news - do you research or fact check it before forwarding?
So get info such as 9th circuit court has 80% cases overturned - the highest in the system - would you fact check that on snopes or the American Bar association first? " .. more than 99 percent of that circuit’s decisions stood and the Supreme Court reviewed a scant 0.106 percent of circuit court cases each year."
The answer is yes … and really no. Confused? Many are, because we all suck at math.
I would never use 'fact check' or some other source that checks the facts... because they themselves often have a 'bias' in how they report the facts, and/or what facts they choose to find.
But I almost always do a Search... you can type in:
"9th circuit court has 80% cases overturned"
and then I select what looks like interesting results:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-mem … athan-keim
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti … sed_appeal
Wala... doing my own research and not relying on Snopes to give the answer to me.
Thanks Ken, I have been meaning to look that up.
Great answer: For the 9th, used not only snopes but also the ABA
I am that annoying friend who fact checks all the crazy stuff people post, and leaves a link of the source showing it's bogus in the comments.
So, yes. I'm a fact checker.
I like PolitiFact, but I also like to Google the pertinent details, and see what the first five or six sites are that support the statement. If they're an assortment of well-known organizations, I feel good about it. If they're the usual list of extreme right-wing or left-wing blogs, not so much.
As I noted in my answer: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110 … under-fire
The only way to really find unbiased answers is to do your own research from scratch, otherwise you swallowing whatever bias or BS they are feeding u
What I've learned from HP: no matter which sites you use to verify facts, somebody is going to tell you they're biased. I could say I was standing there, watching an event happen, and someone would still yell bias.
Indeed... I guess the point I would like to make, is that the 'fact check' sites aren't 100% reliable, and have a tendency to be not quite so factual in their fact checking.
I don't forward news stories unless they're unique or funny.
My guess is most people who do forward news stories are not investing their time trying to "fact check" or compile other sources. News stories are biased right down to the photos used.
Most people forward news stories that (they agree with) to people they believe will appreciate them or in some instances it's an attempt to win an argument they've been having with someone.
This question is interesting to have on a writer's site. I would not trust fact check business as far as I can throw them. I think a side trip to Wicki to get some buzz words, Chase down what buzz words were used in the news, Look for non-paid PDF references. Kind of check to see what Gov entity regulates a field and see what they got.
But forwarding for me is sending it to a confidant to get their view, not to show them that something is true.
What I see as the biggest mistake that researchers make is considering conclusions as facts. You just cannot be that lazy and be credible. You simply do not read the headline and the last line. You have to go through and put facts down, and then separate them with pros and cons and further separate them by fake type hyperbole like flaming adjectives or adverbs.
If it was a "bright sunny day" does that mean the witness was blinded by bright or that he had on sunglasses that partially obstructed color vision?
I used to right mostly legal stuff. You have to cite every single source used to come up with your argument.
Now I write a whole lot about the Bible. But you would have to know your bible to know that because I do not due that "this verse says this so that means it makes sense here" kind of bolstering. Either it makes sense to you are it doesn't. In the philosophy and spirituality field you do not state as a fact, that is for the reader to determine.
Great question and it made me kind of review and structure my process. I think I do some of this without even a conscious intention.
Politics are cool because in the end the only fact that matters is the fact of if someone bought the bullshit.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.