Is there a conservative "politifact", "snopes", "factcheck.org" etc?

[gnome]

Is there a conservative "politifact", "snopes", "factcheck.org" etc?

I like to go to websites that dig a little deeper into a story or a claim than your average newspaper, and help decide what information or people to trust more.

This has led me to places like snopes, politifact, factcheck.org, and similar sites.

Despite the fact that by my reckoning, these sites seem willing to expose BS from any political source, I often have heard that one or another of them are run by liberals who unfairly attack conservatives and refuse to criticize their own consistently.

I'm asking of people that have this impression--that most of the well known sites such as this are in fact biased liberal--can they point me to a site that has the same function, but that they feel isn't biased? Or, acknowledging that a lot of these sites seem to indeed be run by liberals (which is not the same thing as distorting their findings), are there similar sites run by conservatives?

If there aren't, I have to wonder why.

 

[gnome]

I should add, that even if these sites always report findings honestly and objectively, that I believe they should not be taken as unshakeable authority. My issue is that I have had findings dismissed for the sole reason that "that site's a bunch of liberals" instead of disputing the details of their report.

 

[Bri]

I'm guessing that the Washington Post Fact Checker (Glenn Kessler) is probably right of center.

However, I don't think any of them are particularly partisan. PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and the Washington Post Fact Checker all listed "the Republicans voted to end Medicare" among their lies/falsehoods of the year.

-Bri

 

[DavidJames]

I like to go to websites that dig a little deeper into a story or a claim than your average newspaper, and help decide what information or people to trust more.

This has led me to places like snopes, politifact, factcheck.org, and similar sites.

Despite the fact that by my reckoning, these sites seem willing to expose BS from any political source, I often have heard that one or another of them are run by liberals who unfairly attack conservatives and refuse to criticize their own consistently.

I'm asking of people that have this impression--that most of the well known sites such as this are in fact biased liberal--can they point me to a site that has the same function, but that they feel isn't biased? Or, acknowledging that a lot of these sites seem to indeed be run by liberals (which is not the same thing as distorting their findings), are there similar sites run by conservatives?

If there aren't, I have to wonder why.

Since Reality Has a Liberal Bias, it makes sense fact checking sites would appear liberal

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think Snopes and FactCheck.org have very slight conservative biases.

At least they sometimes seem to equate small fibs and errors with egregious whoppers.

[ETA: And I think that slight conservative bias is because they're trying to compensate for charges that they have a liberal bias. It's the same with news coverage in general by the "liberal media".]

For example, I remember the story about Bin Laden relatives being flown around and allowed to leave the country during the post 9-11 no fly period. At first, Snopes said that the story was outrageous and preposterous and couldn't possibly be true. Later, when it turned out that it was true, the article changed to the one we have now--it's true but it certainly doesn't support any whacky CTs.

On FactCheck, I recall during one of the debates (during the Kerry v. Bush campaign) that they were discussing the success (or lack thereof) of operations in Iraq wrt the number of trained and ready Iraqi troops. The Democratic side (I disremember whether this was a VP debate or what) erred in their favor by rounding the number down to the nearest thousand. The Republican side erred by reporting a figure a couple of orders of magnitude too large. The Factcheck story reported it as if they were simply both wrong.

I think that's why I prefer the truth-o-meter of Politifact--sometimes "true" or "false" (or "mixed") isn't enough.

I think the perceived liberal bias is just an illusion. But then again so is the so-called "liberal media".

 

[Alareth]

A Birther is trying to get Fact Check's non-profit status taken away with the claim that they are not non-partisan because they published Obama's birth certificate and claimed it was authentic.

This makes them left wing liberal socialist commie muslim huggers

Researcher Ron Polland has launched Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service challenges against Factcheck.org, charging the media monitor has violated its tax-exempt legal status as a non-partisan organization by publishing and promoting a short-form birth certificate for Obama he contends was forged…
Polland’s complaint to the IRS reads in part:
In June 2008, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, D/B/A Annenberg Factcheck colluded with the Obama Campaign to create a false identity document for Barack Obama and to conduct a propaganda campaign to prevent Obama’s true identity and citizenship from being known. The document was allegedly a scan image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth. In August 2008, after people questioned its authenticity, Factcheck created a physical document using a printout of the same scan image and took photos of it. Factcheck used the photos along with a fraudulent examination of them to authenticate the same false identity document they created.
Polland asked the IRS to rescind Factcheck’s non-profit status, charging the principals at Factcheck are “leftwing political activists who campaigned for Obama and against McCain.”
​

 

[Ladewig]

I'm asking of people that have this impression--that most of the well known sites such as this are in fact biased liberal--can they point me to a site that has the same function, but that they feel isn't biased? Or, acknowledging that a lot of these sites seem to indeed be run by liberals (which is not the same thing as distorting their findings), are there similar sites run by conservatives?

The closest thing I could find is : http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page


Warning. Do not try to chug an orange soda while reading this site because it will come up through your nose.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The closest thing I could find is : http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Yikes! I have a difficult time even considering Conservapedia as any kind of fact checking organization! It's almost the exact opposite!

For a fact checking of Conservapedia, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Conservapedia

 

[Tricky]

The closest thing I could find is : http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page


Warning. Do not try to chug an orange soda while reading this site because it will come up through your nose.

Other flavors are okay though?

 

[Crossbow]

There is an NPR story about 'Conservapedia' as well when it was first started:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Other flavors are okay though?

I'm thinking maybe it was an obscure reference. . from the Conservapedia author to Phyllis Schlafly to Anita Bryant (of conservative activism and orange juice fame).

Or maybe it had no significance at all!

 

[Ladewig]

Yikes! I have a difficult time even considering Conservapedia as any kind of fact checking organization! It's almost the exact opposite!

For a fact checking of Conservapedia, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Conservapedia

It was mostly a joke; but many of the folks who claim Snopes is too biased to even look at, believe that Conservvapedia is an accurate depiction of reality.

 

[DavidJames]

It was mostly a joke; but many of the folks who claim Snopes is too biased to even look at, believe that Conservvapedia is an accurate depiction of reality.

and Fox News provides appropriate balance to the liberal media.

 

[RandFan]

I've heard that claim about them. I don't know if it is true but I've also heard that www.truthorfiction.com leans to the right. Again, don't know if that is true.

 

[respect]

I like to go to websites that dig a little deeper into a story or a claim than your average newspaper, and help decide what information or people to trust more.

This has led me to places like snopes, politifact, factcheck.org, and similar sites.

Despite the fact that by my reckoning, these sites seem willing to expose BS from any political source, I often have heard that one or another of them are run by liberals who unfairly attack conservatives and refuse to criticize their own consistently.

I'm asking of people that have this impression--that most of the well known sites such as this are in fact biased liberal--can they point me to a site that has the same function, but that they feel isn't biased? Or, acknowledging that a lot of these sites seem to indeed be run by liberals (which is not the same thing as distorting their findings), are there similar sites run by conservatives?

If there aren't, I have to wonder why.

By its very nature fact checking cannot be biased.

However, quite a few liberals have been tantruming about PolitiFact because they had the audacity to suggest that Democrats have lied this year. Apparently in their minds good fact checking means only pointing it out when Republicans lie.

Of course, in reality, good fact checking means pointing out all lies regardless of party.

 

[Ladewig]

Other flavors are okay though?

When I often heard the expression in the 1960's, it was always orange soda. No idea why. Perhaps it is because orange is a funnier color than brown when something fizzy is escaping through a person's nose.

 

[Ladewig]

By its very nature fact checking cannot be biased.

Political fact checking often involves providing additional information in order to help evaluate the claim being made. How that information is provided (or how it isn't provided) can be biased.

ETA:
Also, even deciding what is going to be checked can be biased. If President H.P. Firefly makes a statement and I ask a Freedonian television station to fact check it, they could reply, "that wasn't a statement of fact, that was a statement of opinion therefore fact checking would be neither appropriate or constructive."

 

[Random]

By its very nature fact checking cannot be biased.

However, quite a few liberals have been tantruming about PolitiFact because they had the audacity to suggest that Democrats have lied this year. Apparently in their minds good fact checking means only pointing it out when Republicans lie.

Of course, in reality, good fact checking means pointing out all lies regardless of party.

Most of the complaining about Politifact was that they declared the Democratic party claim that "Republicans voted to end Medicare" their "Lie of the Year" based on the idea that they were not voting to "end" Medicare, but rather to slowly transition Medicare to a voucher system. Democrats believe that the Ryan voucher plan slowly replaces Medicare with a voucher system that happens to be named "Medicare".

If you viewed the Ryan voucher plan as being a different program that happened to also be named "Medicare", then the Democratic claim was true. If you thought it was just a "change" to Medicare, then the Democratic claim was false.

If you viewed the claim as true, then Politifact taking a statement of fact and naming it their "Lie of the Year" is obviously going to strike you as pretty outrageous.

 

[JWideman]

Well, there's the Landover Baptist site, I guess.

 

[respect]

Political fact checking often involves providing additional information in order to help evaluate the claim being made. How that information is provided (or how it isn't provided) can be biased.

ETA:
Also, even deciding what is going to be checked can be biased. If President H.P. Firefly makes a statement and I ask a Freedonian television station to fact check it, they could reply, "that wasn't a statement of fact, that was a statement of opinion therefore fact checking would be neither appropriate or constructive."

Sure, interpretation of facts can be biased, but facts themselves cannot be.