The One Op-Ed That Details All You Need to Know About the 'Fact Checkers' in the Media

It may have been an op-ed from August, but if fact-checkers continue to be agents of the Democratic Party—it’ll remain a relevant story. These guys are almost as bad as the regular liberal media clowns we put with daily. It has added power, however, because major social media platform takes their gulag cues from these liberal operatives. It’s a known secret that PolitiFact is a joke of a fact-checking outlet that has done well in trying to make Joe Biden seem competent. Then, there’s Snopes—which is peak clown town when it comes to this stuff. The New York Post’s editorial board had the piece detailing all you need to know about this outlet and fact-checkers in general. While PolitiFact may be a hack outfit, at least they didn’t have fake bylines that peddled plagiarized content (via NY Post):

A BuzzFeed investigation found that Snopes’ David Mikkelson has “been lying to the site’s tens of millions of readers.” Snopes, which has served as a Facebook fact-checker, confirmed that Mikkelson published at least 54 plagiarized articles under various bylines.
His fake alter-ego, Jeff Zarronandia, claimed to be a Pulitzer Prize winner and had bylines “on at least 23 Snopes articles on topics like Donald Trump’s financial woes and false rumors about Hillary Clinton.”
Snopes has suspended Mikkelson from editorial duties pending “a comprehensive internal investigation.” But he’s still a company officer and 50 percent shareholder.
And Snopes has other problems. A…piece complained, “Facebook Fails To Stem COVID Denialism Even as Delta Variant Surges,” and insisted that a post “misleadingly claimed: ‘Delta is a distraction! Get your eyes back on the border!’ . . . undermined the severity of the Delta variant surge.” That’s a fact check, for someone to suggest one news story is worth more attention than another?
Other “fact-checkers” play propagandist, too: PolitiFact, an actual Pulitzer Prize winner, this week rated “False” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s statement that there is “clear, legal authority” for arrest of those fugitive Texas lawmakers — when the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they could be arrested. The site claims, “While the language uses the word ‘arrest,’ there’s uncertainty about how this term is to be interpreted.” What does that even mean? Cruz was clearly right; PolitiFact was just mad about it.

And they can continue to be dishonest because there’s no accountability anymore. The doctrine of the noble lie has been entrenched. If a leader is someone these people find disagreeable like if they’re a Republican, they can write whatever and cite whatever that’s damning to get rid of that person. They did it to Trump. And remember, platforms, like Facebook, use these guys to police content. This is the censorship debate we’re all having because often it’s merely the opinion the liberal fact-checkers don’t like.

Seriously, need I say more about Snopes: