BookMark Dump of Known Resources(links):

Research & Fact Checks:

FlackCheck.org – A project of Annenberg Classroom

Lead Stories

8 ways to connect with PolitiFact

Debunking False Stories Archives - FactCheck.org

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

OpenSecrets Blog - Breaking news, original reporting, and investigative journalism *on money in politics from the Center for Responsive Politics

Fact Checker - The Washington Post

Homework Help, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and Online Almanac | Fact Monster

FactCheck.org - A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

Facts and Myths Regarding Trending Topics - Fact and Myth

Urban Legends

What's New | Snopes.com

Fact-checking pundits | PunditFact

Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact

Politics That Work (lib??)

Latest Email Hoaxes - Current Internet Scams - Hoax-Slayer

Media Bias/Fact Check - Search and Learn the Bias of News Media

POLITICUSUSA

The Nazis were not socialists - Full Fact

Our team | Africa Check

FactCheck.org | Facebook

memeorandum

Fake & Misleading News Sites

NFL: Trump Is Delusional Or Lying, Releases Statement Correcting The President

Empire News

Weekly World News | The World's Only Reliable News

Home - Baltimore Gazette

Conservative Tribune Fearless, Bold, Conservative.

The Onion - America’s Finest News Source

DISCLAIMER

Verified Politics

Find related images with reverse image search - Android - Google Search Help

False Comparisons Promote Apathy and Complacency

Several attempts have been made to downplay and poo-poo the seriousness of the COVID-19 virus from the President's claim that it would be no worse than the flu to Dr. Phil comparing it to the number of annual drownings:

"So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu…" Trump March 9, 2020

“360,000 (deaths) a year from swimming pools. But we don’t shut the country down for that.”  Dr. Phil April 20, 2020

Dr. Phil misstated the number of deaths from drowning in pools by over 10 times the number of drownings. The actual number of deaths from drowning is about 3700 people and this is not limited to pool drownings. It includes lakes, rivers, suicides, boating accidents, and floods.

• The first problem with these comparisons is that it is not even the end of April and COVID-19 has already surpassed the number of deaths annually from the flu and drownings in the US.
• The second problem is that we go to great lengths to keep those numbers down research, awareness campaigns, education, etc., and in the case of the common flu vaccines, but we have nothing in place for COVID-19. The common flu comparison shouldn't be to today's death rates but to the 1957 (70,000 deaths) and 1918 (675,000 deaths) flu epidemics because the major contributing factor back then was, like today, the lack of a vaccine
• The third problem is false comparisons. Comparing a contagious disease to drownings, suicides and traffic accidents, shark and bear attack deaths is ridiculous. Drowning isn't contagious. But for the record, COVID-19 has already passed those numbers too. The country is shut down because COVID-19 is contagious and we have no vaccine, tracking, or widespread testing.
  We have also surpassed the annual number for  The 1921-1925 Diphtheria epidemic, the 1906 Typhoid fever epidemic, and at this rate, COVID-19 will also surpass Kidney Disease and Diabetes annual deaths.

These comparisons are as counter-productive as the apathy, scapegoating, self-promotion,  and indecisiveness displayed by our presidential leadership. Our response at the national level is woefully lacking in comparison to the rest of the world.

Only 4 months passed and we are already at 45,000 deaths.

by GlennDL

To review weekly FactCheck updates on the COVID-19 virus see the "COVID-19 FACTCHECK ARCHIVE FEED" at the top of the left-hand column on this page.

Sources:

• The Most Dangerous Epidemics in U.S. History
• Deaths and Mortality Data are for the U.S.
• ROAD SAFETY FACTS
• Like the flu? Trump's coronavirus messaging confuses public, pandemic researchers say

COVID-19 Post/information April 5, 2020

MOST POST ARE CLICKABLE

Acceptable News and Opinion Sources:

If you’re interested in the truth you don’t just seek out facts or opinions that agree with your point of view… you seek out all facts and entertain opinions contrary to yours. You don’t name call or categorize those who disagree with you. You don’t portray those you disagree with as less thoughtful than you and you don’t differ to people you consider infallible.

Know the difference between opinion and news. Determine to what degree you accept opinion when it is offered with facts. Understand that it would be virtually impossible to cover, report, or editorialize the news without the presence of some bias… that’s human nature.

You can accept the above list as gospel or totally disregard it*, you have the right to be as bias as you want, but at least have a semblance of rational and reasonable fairness in what you post. Too often those who complain about the ‘mainstream media’, the ‘liberal’ or ‘right-wing’ press fail to acknowledge that they are not complaining about ‘media bias’, they are really complaining about ‘media not biased enough’ towards their bias.

*For example, I would label CNN as ‘OPINION’. The designation of ‘opinion or news is not to identify the source as either or, but is in reference to what seems to be their dominate presentation. In this regard I see CNN as predominately opinion oriented, liberal. I also would lump MSNBC (which is on this list) with FOXNews (which is not on this list) as being too ‘hyper-bias’, sometimes to the point of being utter nonsense or damaging to public discourse. Now since I have disconnected my cable service for the last year it could be that MSNBC (as well as others) could have changed their act.

Below is the original unedited chart from MediasBiasChart.com . I have tried to simplify it and limit my list to mainstream news sources with minimal to some bias that are still considered fair and reputable.

For other fact checking information I have collected click here and scroll down past this article.

Learning to spot fake news: Start with a gut check

Fact Checking

How about checking your facts once in awhile

Snopes and Urban Legends are the oldest fact-checking sites, but PolitiFact is probably the most efficient and popular.

Below is a list of sites I use:

• http://www.snopes.com/
• http://urbanlegends.about.com/
• http://www.truthorfiction.com/
• http://www.politifact.com/
• http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
• http://factcheck.org/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker
• http://www.factandmyth.com/    *
• http://www.factmonster.com/     *

* These are new sites that I have not yet completly vetted  

Can a fact-checking site be biased? Of course, but the critical point is to what degree, and even more important is that just because you disagree with the fact check that doesn’t make it biased. Too often, we look for confirmation of our own biased by rejecting any bias by others.

Ask yourself this:

• Does the site have a stated methodology in their evaluation of facts? Do they conform to that methodology?
• Does the site provide names, dates, verifiable quotes, and links to supporting references.
• Are the source and references independent of the fact-checking site? In other-words is the site quoting themselves or sister sites, opinion sites, or sites that are themselves biased.
• Always consider the opposing opinion. You can’t truly understand the complexity of debate if you can’t completely understand and explain the opposing view.
• Too many websites will contain a link to what is supposed to support a fact, but does it? I’ve seen many sites quote an article from SNOPES.COM, and then when I click the link, the SNOPES article doesn’t support the sites claim, sometimes it is unrelated, and sometimes it even disputes the claim. What is happening there is the site assumes that most people will be attracted to their headline and won’t read the article, and they think you are too lazy to click and read the SNOPES article. That’s them calling you stupid and lazy, not me. Always check sources and links; after a while, you learn what sites are honest and not.
• Can you make a critical and fact-based argument to support you view in the face of an unfavorable fact check?

After a while, you will learn what fact-checking websites are the most reliable and honest. Notice I didn’t say unbiased. If you want a fact checker that supports your biased then your not interested in the truth. If you want a website that has absolutely no bias then good luck. If you can accept a website that meets the above criteria with some, but minimal bias, then you are on the right track to getting at deciphering truth from opinion.

Never present opinion as fact, never ignore facts in the face of opinion, and don’t ever be afraid to weigh both fact and opinion equally.

These two sights are not fact-checking sites like the above but:

this one is great for looking up and reading the actual language of proposed laws. You can also look up laws passed in past congresses:

• http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

and this one is great for looking up actual labor statistics. You know for those charts that keep appearing comparing on presidents effect on jobs against another, or one party against another.

• http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

When the site provides a link or reference, does it checkout? Usually, when you want to check an email, you can copy the title in the subject line of the email into the 'Search" box on the websites page. If someone has changed the subject line in the chain email, you may have to look for a key phrase or words to put into the search box.

I won't claim that any of these sights are free of bias, but I don't think any site or any of us can make that claim. The question should be how bias, that's why I usually look at more than two sights on any subject and sometimes will look at all of them to see if anyone has a counter-argument.

Over the years, I have responded to chain mails because I think that, just like old-fashion chain letters, they are, for the most part, deceitful and pray on the little old lady types who could be scared into keeping the chain going for fear of bad luck. That may never be the person's intention in forwarding the chain mail, but it is the intention of the person who originated it.

Sadly, it seems many people like forwarding chain emails. I say this because, over the years, as I have responded by correcting the chainmail's, I have received less of them. I suspect that too many people prefer to receive chainmail's that fit into their beliefs more so than they want to hear the truth or facts about someone they would rather hate than know the truth. (??)

I was receiving some chain e-mails so often that at one point, I started cataloging them on one this website to keep from having to re-answer the same chainmail every year. (Click the "Spitting Back" link) There are 20 posts under that topic, and they all won't appear in the same listing, so when you get near the bottom, look for the 'Older Post' link. There is also a link ('Spam and E-Mail Hoaxes') in the 'Information' box for an explanation of how and why people start chainmail's and why they can be putting your mailing list at risk.'

Sadly, it seems many people like forwarding chain e-mails. I say this because, over the years, as I have responded by correcting the chainmail's, I have received less of them. I suspect that too many people prefer to receive chainmail's that fit into their beliefs more so than they want to hear the truth or facts about someone they would rather hate than know the truth. (??)

GlennDL

MORE

125

Mis-Information:

In the past when man's curiosity was peaked he sought out more information, but today…

We seem to live in a society where in spite of an ever increasing abundance of resources to obtain accurate information on virtually any subject we are overwhelmed by a cacophony of inaccurate and dishonest dissemination of falsehoods and misinformation.

Too many of us are either too lazy or too easily distracted to make use of the available resources and instead accept the barrage of misinformation that is thrown at us. It comes at us from many entities: political parties or their extremist by-products, religious zealots and their ‘chosen ones’, rebels and outliers, corporate lobbyist, wall street ad agencies, cable TV & news, talk radio, social media,and even the well intentioned but equally mis-informed information junkie.

We are so bombarded with useless information that instead of using information to discover real truths, we succumb to the bombardment and accept anything thrown at us as either a complete falsehood or the righteous truth dependent on how immediately it appeals to our preconceived notions.  Religious leaders, politicians and wall street can just throw things(lies and half-truths) against the wall (us) and see what sticks.

As a result of this we tend to confuse our religious leaders with or political leaders, our economic system (capitalism) with our form of government (democratic republic). We don’t see our founding fathers as men of principle who when discovering differences of opinion had the character and patience to seek compromise without abandoning their principles. We now see them as men who embrace our particular political party (which did not exist in their time)

                                                                   GlennDL

The Internet Troll:

 

I welcome relevant civil discussion and debate on any Facebook post that I create or share.
Agree or disagree, criticize or phrase, take or question a position.
Inquire.
Do all of the above.

It's your choice and I will not block or remove your entry no matter how much I disagree.

Or do none of the above, but I reserve the right to remove any entry or comment that attempts to

• be obscene,
• engage in name calling, derogatory or personal attacks,
• promote bigotry, hate, anger or violence,
• or attempts to interrupt or suppress free discussion with appeals towards non-positions.

Apathy and ambiguity are the tools of the uninformed, the indecisive, and the Troll.

Satire, sarcasm, sarcastic, critical wit, mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, irony, caricature; NOT LITERAL!

I usually do not post/share satire, or use satire when writing or making a comment, because of the possibility that people sometimes don't get that its satire, and go ballistic, loose faith in you, or start re-posting it, quoting it or believing that it is fact.

To this day their are still conservatives who believe that Steve Colbert is actually conservative... they don't get that he was 'playing' a conservative on his show The Steve Colbert Report and was actually making fun of them. Expressing satire and sarcasm in writing can be tricky, even when your being obvious, which is why many have advocated for a 'sarcasm' font,* but everyone thinks their just kidding, i.e. being sarcastic. 

Get it? that's irony... oh never mind.                 GlennDL

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
noun

• the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
  synonyms:
  mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature, irony, sarcasm

• a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.
  plural noun: satires
  "a stinging satire on American politics"
  synonyms: parody, burlesque, caricature, lampoon, skit; informal: spoof, takeoff, sendup
  "a satire on Canadian politics"

• a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.  A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous. Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is a satire of eighteenth-century British society.

*I am also, for the sake of clarity, establishing my own personal ‘sarcasm’ font. Now I have no skill set that allows me to create a font, nor do I believe my post or blogs are trendy enough that my designating a font will catch on, but as protection against poor or ambiguous satire on my part, my blogs will utilize the “Gentium Basic” font, bold/italic,  as text that should be read as satire. (in red on light backgrounds, or yellow on dark backgrounds)

(note: that this is for future post/articles, there are no current plans to update old post)
[5-18-2015]

False Comparisons: Apples and Oranges, both are fruit, but are not the same thing.

In regards to #1... The same people are not making both statements.  The first statement is true of Muslims, Gun Owners, and police...it should be true of everyone.
The second statement is wrong, but the people who are making it are very often uninformed or are suggesting that others are saying it.

I would be interested in an example of one prominent person saying that all gun owners should be judged by a few. 

In regards to #2... The people who are sounding the alarm on Social Security are doing so to scare the populace into believing that it needs to be privatized, end it, and link its demise (by calling it an entitlement) to other safety net programs (such as Social Security). Of course they are wrong... but they are making ground because we are always willing to blame the demise of one thing on the existence of another thing, no matter how unrelated. In other words instead of calling out the right-wing for their attacks on Social Security we fail to see them as the culprit because we are too busy wanting to believe them when they attack welfare.

Social Security is not going to run out of money as long as we make reasonable adjustments...just like we have for 75 years. There is always a date down the road where Social Security will run out of money... that has always been a fact, and those adjustments will fine tune it. Let's hope that the fear mongering right-wing is continually blocked from doing negative fine-tuning like they did with the Post Office, in an attempt to run them into the ground to the point that privatization becomes acceptable. Want to see the insolvency date of Social Security be pushed further away on the calendar? Then just watch what happens when 11 million illegal immigrants become legal and can start paying into Social Security. Social Security already got a 5 billion dollar annual boost from immigrants that have used false identities to get jobs (p.s. money they will never get back in benefits)

As far as the second statement in #2 regarding welfare recipients and them not working: 29 per cent of them are working, many have worked in the past but low-wages and lack of public assistance for working mothers has made employment an impossible option... they know they cant be a stay at home mom because of their economic situation... but $40 hours at minimum wage does not put food on the table and rent, and child care. Not all poor people, people on welfare, are lazy drug addicts. Several states have tried drug testing welfare recipients and discovered that less than 3% were on drugs. That's below the national average including working people. Yes, there are cheaters and abusers on welfare...there are some on Social Security too... but instead of judging everyone on welfare, and making attacks on the poor, how about improved enforcement against the cheaters... sort of like the gun lobby advocates better enforcement whenever anyone suggest the most benign and reasonable suggestion on new gun laws following a mass shooting.
So lets follow the advise given in the first statement in item #1 above: Lets not judge everyone in any group by the behavior of a few.

by GlennDL

Ambiguity:

"I did not have sexual relations with that women."
"We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
“If I would have to do it all over again, I would.”
"Well, listen. I'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change."

from Join the Coffee Party Movement on Monday, April 27, 2015

Fact Checking Links:

Here are some of the links I use to follow the money, fact check, learn more about legislation, issues, and political statements. Do you have links that you use to combat misinformation or use it as a solid source? If so, share away!

Legislation: The devil is in the details. They often use safe titles and fluffy synopsis's to disguise the true goals of the bill. It's hard reading at times but hey, someone has to do

• it.http://www.opencongress.org/   
• http://www.govtrack.us/users/  
• http://www.popvox.com/  

The Library of Congress is a great place to find all sorts of historic things. Fun just to surf also.

• http://www.loc.gov/index.html  

Follow the money. Who is filling the pockets of our beloved congresspeople?

• http://www.opensecrets.org/  

Surprise! Not everything coming out of politicians and t.v./radio pundits mouths are true. Check out these sites:

• http://www.factcheck.org/  
• http://www.politifact.com/

also see

80

We Are One:

• Martin Luther King, Jr., Peace And Memorial Park

•