 |
| Image: Beyond Perspective |
Whereas simple mistakes or misinterpretations sometimes result in false or inaccurate claims of false claims, unfortunately there are other times where major players in the media and fact checking outlets allow opinions or other factors to influence or elicit false or misleading claims of false or misleading statements.
Being the skilled writers that many of these establishments are, they often do this without directly lying and use actual facts as evidence making it difficult to discern between opinion or actual fact.
When this is done intentionally, it not only harms the integrity of all media sources of information, but it's an abuse of the trust in a Fact Check.
Here are several of the common practices and methods used to misrepresent the facts that range from legitimate difference of opinion or misinterpretation to outright disinformation or blatant fabrications.
How Fact Checks Mislead
Sometimes fact checks are misleading or false claims themselves, which is sometimes human error while other times outright malicious and intentional.
When intentional or even influenced or biased, skilled writers present a plausible claim without obvious fabrications and often based on actual facts.
Here's a very simple example of how this is done.
Events:
- John has $1.
- John owes Mary 72 cents and Mary needs it paid back,
- John gives Mary $1 to pay back the 72 cents he owed her.
- Mary doesn't have 28 cents to give john in change for that $1 after deducting her 71 cents.
- John tells Mary to "Keep the Change".
- Sue asks John to borrow 50 cents.
- John tells Sue he does not have it because he just gave Mary his last $1.
- Sue tells Mary that John said he gave her his last $1.
- Mary tells Sue that John lied an that he only gave her 28 cents.
Claim: "John lies about giving Mary $1"
This is a misleading and false claim of someone deliberately lying that is also technically plausible and can be claimed to be technically accurate.
The problem's are that:
The problem's are that:
- John's intentions are not clear or possible to know (did he intentionally lie to Sue?)
- John in fact, did, give Mary $1 as far as the "action" of handing her $1.
From John's point of view, his statement was 100% accurate.
However:
- Mary was owed 72 cents.
- Mary interpreted "give" as in a "gift".
- Mary was "given" 28 cents, not $1.
From Mary's perspective John's statement is untrue.
From Sue's perspective, she believes John may have lied.
If Sue confronts John about the lying, he will have to explain that he did give Mary his last dollar but he didn't mean he gave her a gift of $1, the gift was only 28 cents because he owed her cents.
Sue may end up believing John lied because of the missing information regarding the debt while Sue's data matches John's story.
Sue may end up believing John lied because of the missing information regarding the debt while Sue's data matches John's story.
The actual truth is that John handed Mary $1, it was his last $1, and John did not deliberately lie to Sue. However, it is believable that John lied because the facts support the claim that John only gave Mary 28 cents.
Point being, this can be argued to plausibly support either opinion as shown. However, by looking into the story and the facts with a little more scrutiny, common sense would indicate John merely meant that he handled Mary his last dollar.
Point being, this can be argued to plausibly support either opinion as shown. However, by looking into the story and the facts with a little more scrutiny, common sense would indicate John merely meant that he handled Mary his last dollar.
However, technically this can be argued in favor of Mary and as such, doesn't mean she intentionally lied about John lying.
That is the dilemma.
Since you also cannot prove Mary's intentions, if you like John more than Mary, you are likely going to believe John, and if you like Mary more than John, you are likely going to side with Mary.
This is actually a false claim of a lie. It is simply impossible to know the intentions of either party and both statements are technically accurate. As such, this should not be reported at all.
Something like this would be more likely presented as "John makes misleading claim of giving Mary $1" or "Mary misleads Sue About Receiving $1". Neither headline would be accurate.
The more accurate headline would be "John and Mary Have Different Perspectives on $1 Exchange", but then it wouldn't be a fact to check.
Actual Lie
Now had John told Sue "I just gave Mary my last $5", or had Mary stated that "John didn't give me anything, he's lying.", then either statement would clearly indicate a probable mistruth or outright deliberate lie.
That's not what happened.
This is just a simple example of how this works. However, this can be rather complex and very believable without a different perspective and/or additional data.
This is just a simple example of how this works. However, this can be rather complex and very believable without a different perspective and/or additional data.
This is also why Fact Checkers have rating systems of various degrees of what is true or false, which in itself is a rather unfair practice.
If you challenge any statement as "partly false" or "slightly misleading", people still view the statement as false. The only rating viewed as true is when it says explicitly says true.
If you challenge any statement as "partly false" or "slightly misleading", people still view the statement as false. The only rating viewed as true is when it says explicitly says true.
Spin
Spin involves providing a biased interpretation of an event or set of facts in an attempt to influence public opinion, however, is not necessarily a lie or misleading.
One classic example is when a politician is accused of "...providing tax cuts that primarily benefit the superrich".
While this is truthful, it is misleading because every federal income tax "cut" is going to benefit the upper taxpayer bracket. This is because all tax cuts reduce the federal income tax that employers pay for their employees.
For example:
- John earns $50,000 per year.
- John pays $14,000 per year in federal income tax.
- Johns employer withholds $14,000 from Johns pay checks.
- Johns employer pays the IRS $28,000 for the year John was employed.
- This includes $14,000 withheld and $14,000 Johns employer is required to match.
Any tax cut that benefits John, benefits John's employer who benefits from John's tax cut and additionally tax cuts for all other employees.
Thus, it is impossible to reduce any federal income tax to occur without benefiting the employers who pay these taxes which is the predominant top 1% and other in that tax bracket.
Thus, it is impossible to reduce any federal income tax to occur without benefiting the employers who pay these taxes which is the predominant top 1% and other in that tax bracket.
Hearsay
Often there is a 3rd party who, for example, would claim John or Mary lied while citing Sue as the reference.
Suddenly, now there's 3 people claiming John lied and the court of public opinion is going to believe those 3 over John unless they lie John more than Mary.
For example, Bill heard John lied from Sue. Sue heard John Lied from Mary. Mary believes on her first-hand account that John lied to Sue.
Anonymous bystander or any one of Mary's friends is going to believe John is a liar because of the "multiple witnesses to John's lies".
Hearsay of Hearsay
One common political use of hearsay in the media is presented as "officials say", "according to experts", "aides have said", and similar rhetoric where words like "officials", "experts", and "aides" sound like sourced material, however, they are not.
Unsourced hearsay is unreliable and potentially fabricated. There is no way to discern between accuracy and falsehoods.
Moreover, another media trick is to accurately source references who quote hearsay or unsourced hearsay. For example, "John said that according to Mary's aides, she lied" which is citing a reference to John, which is hearsay, who is then quoting an unsourced "aide" who said something about Mary.
This appears cited to the reader of the media article who cites John, but is ultimately hearsay of hearsay of unsourced hearsay which may also be fabricated hearsay and as such, is completely unreliable.
This appears cited to the reader of the media article who cites John, but is ultimately hearsay of hearsay of unsourced hearsay which may also be fabricated hearsay and as such, is completely unreliable.
Exaggerations
While misleading, exaggerations are not intentional lies, they are presentations of the facts in the best possible manner, usually made to sound better or worse than they actually are. For example, "Jane claimed the best economy in history" or "John has the worst record on immigration".
These are intentional presentations taking advantage of relative perspectives, however, generally are not lies. They are glorifications of fact with lesser tangible value ranging from simple overstatements rounding towards the nearest beneficial measure to overblown emphasis on things overshadowed by other opposing things generally not mentioned within the same statement or swiftly mentioned and moved beyond to lessen any significance.
