https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprf-race-based-grading/
Snopes claims to do fact checks. They name the source. That is valid because its important to know the origin of a claim, in order to have the option to look into it as a reader.
What they are doing then is utterly ridiculous in the given context. They start characterising the source. This is so out of place here that it falls flat on its face. If you are concerned about the facts you don't characterise the source (Pink-slime journalism), and they are doing this as their very first step. Absolutly shameless.
In their characterisation of the source they make use of partisan lingo. This makes it even more puzzling. This serves no function in a 'fact check' but to poison the well.
The term they use in this context must work under one of those two assumptions:
1. It works under the theory that local news outlets conspire with other news outlets to push a certain point.
It would be more transperant to call this the Pink-slime journalism conspiracy theory then
2. It just so happens that news outlets report such information and other outlets pick up on that information and stand by it, while the information is totally wrong. And it just so happens that this happens largely on one side of the spectrum of political thought (within the frame of hermetic dialectic at least).
In this case you either have a really strong case with strong compelling evidence, that proves that this is an organic phenomenon or reconsider your own position.
Either way, poisioning the well while posing as a authoritative fact checker is not valid.
But is it Valid Free Speech under the contemporary understanding?
Yes. It is ridiculous, but it is Valid Free Speech.
Full version and discussion here:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/is-snopes-valid-free-speech.613409/
Snopes claims to do fact checks. They name the source. That is valid because its important to know the origin of a claim, in order to have the option to look into it as a reader.
What they are doing then is utterly ridiculous in the given context. They start characterising the source. This is so out of place here that it falls flat on its face. If you are concerned about the facts you don't characterise the source (Pink-slime journalism), and they are doing this as their very first step. Absolutly shameless.
In their characterisation of the source they make use of partisan lingo. This makes it even more puzzling. This serves no function in a 'fact check' but to poison the well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
The term they use in this context must work under one of those two assumptions:
1. It works under the theory that local news outlets conspire with other news outlets to push a certain point.
It would be more transperant to call this the Pink-slime journalism conspiracy theory then
2. It just so happens that news outlets report such information and other outlets pick up on that information and stand by it, while the information is totally wrong. And it just so happens that this happens largely on one side of the spectrum of political thought (within the frame of hermetic dialectic at least).
In this case you either have a really strong case with strong compelling evidence, that proves that this is an organic phenomenon or reconsider your own position.
Either way, poisioning the well while posing as a authoritative fact checker is not valid.
But is it Valid Free Speech under the contemporary understanding?
Yes. It is ridiculous, but it is Valid Free Speech.
Full version and discussion here:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/is-snopes-valid-free-speech.613409/
