Aren’t we lucky to have “fact checker” websites; you know, those great sites that, with total neutrality, check the veracity of what is said on both sides of the political aisle, then diligently report their findings without a trace of political bias.
Or do we?
Before you answer, please read the following excerpts from Robert Schmad’s article at freebeacon.com, which, it seems to me, provides a very necessary, dose of reality:
Nearly 100 percent of political donations from self-identified fact checkers—including those whose employers claim journalistic neutrality—go to Democrats, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of federal campaign finance disclosures found.
The Free Beacon reviewed political donations over the past four election cycles from those who identified their occupation as “fact checker.” $22,580 of the $22,683 in political donations that came from self-identified fact checkers during that time—a whopping 99.5 percent—went to Democrats and liberal groups. Only three of the fact checker donations made during that period went to Republicans. Top recipients include socialist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who during the seven-year period received ten times more fact checker money than every Republican combined.
The findings contradict claims of neutrality from top fact-checking operations. Fact checkers for the New York Times and Reuters, for example, contributed to President Joe Biden, failed South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Jaime Harrison, and liberal Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign. The Times fact checker, Cecilia Nowell, contributed three times to Warren’s failed presidential bid from 2019 to 2020 and still accepts “fact-checking assignments” from the outlet on a freelance basis, according to her LinkedIn. Reuters, meanwhile, from 2020 to 2021 employed Carrie Monahan, daughter of veteran journalist Katie Couric, as a “fact check producer.” Monahan during that time contributed to Biden, Harrison, and Georgia Democratic senator Jon Ossoff.
Both the Times and Reuters say they approach fact checking in an unbiased and balanced manner. Those organizations and others, however, have a long history of botched fact checks on high-profile conservatives.
In a 2020 fact check, for instance, the Times accused Arkansas senator Tom Cotton of flirting with conspiracy theories when the Republican suggested that COVID-19 may have originated in a Chinese research lab. Federal investigations have since corroborated the lab leak theory Cotton promoted.
Fact checkers working for Facebook, meanwhile, last year erroneously designated as misinformation a Free Beacon report on Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services, which was set to fund the distribution of safe smoking kits with crack pipes. Facebook’s fact checker, Lead Stories, kept the piece in place even after the Free Beacon proved that federally-funded harm reduction organizations distributed crack pipes.
There is much, much more in this article. I hope you use the link provided above (here it is again) and read every word.
But even if you do not, please be aware that just because a website promises to check facts, there is no guarantee whatsoever it is doing so neutrally. And if the Free Beacon’s analysis is correct, there is little doubt about which side is getting the benefit of such “neutral” fact checking.
Surprised? I hope not.
