Can you please read the market titles you are putting into your Substack? The Trump claim and BBC follow up were about pets, so it's sloppy to use a market where wild animals are included as evidence against the fact check. This is especially true given the market appears to be updating about wild geese killings.
Harris was only wrong IFF you take what Trump said on truth.social (that he'd veto a federal abortion ban) as an accurate prediction of how he'd behave in office.
He's changed what he's said on this issue so many times you'd be foolish to believe he's the authority on what he'd actually do. In the last debate he refused to say what he'd do when faced with an abortion ban. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Harris ends up being right, were a federal abortion ban to make it through the Senate. I would even say it's the likelier of the two options.
I've already voted, but as an abortion-rights voter I can only look at his past behaviour, and accordingly it's pretty clear who the correct choice is if it's an issue you care about.
I’d be interested to know, given the evidence presented in our story, how people would describe the baseless claims about eating of animals by Haitian migrants in Springfield. It is of course impossible to prove a negative, so when evidence of an event is as thin as it is in this example, what words do you think are accurate?
I really appreciate the work BBC verify and other fact-checkers do, but did think the word "baseless" felt biased in this instance so I was critical. Would be interested to hear if others agree or if I'm the exception and was the one wrong in this instance.
I think a word such as "dubious" to convey skepticism could be more appropriate. As a fact checking piece, rather than an opinion piece, I wonder if an adjective is needed at all. The context provides plenty of evidence for a reader to come to their own opinion that the claim is likely baseless.
Curious to hear your thoughts, I would say there's a decent chance I'm not right in this instance and maybe it is important to word things strongly if it's the best way to combat misinformation. I worry that people will increasingly perceive things as nuanced (even if they are not), which could lead to them dismissing fact-checks which try to paint things very black and white.
I take your point - but if we accept your logic I wonder if “dubious” is just as biased. In fact I suspect it fails in the same way, if that’s the test. “Unevidenced”? I think having looked at the subject in some depth, to not describe it in some way up front would be a dereliction of duty. Most people don’t read the whole article. Would also be interested in what others think.
Yeah unevidenced sounds good. Overall though you guys are doing a great job (much better than these newsletter haha). Appreciate the willingness to engage!
Can you please read the market titles you are putting into your Substack? The Trump claim and BBC follow up were about pets, so it's sloppy to use a market where wild animals are included as evidence against the fact check. This is especially true given the market appears to be updating about wild geese killings.
Good point! I think the sentiment I was trying to convey still stands, but will be more careful going forward. This much less liquid market puts the pet specific claims at 12% https://manifold.markets/Zhazhir/are-there-any-documented-cases-of-h
Harris was only wrong IFF you take what Trump said on truth.social (that he'd veto a federal abortion ban) as an accurate prediction of how he'd behave in office.
He's changed what he's said on this issue so many times you'd be foolish to believe he's the authority on what he'd actually do. In the last debate he refused to say what he'd do when faced with an abortion ban. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Harris ends up being right, were a federal abortion ban to make it through the Senate. I would even say it's the likelier of the two options.
I've already voted, but as an abortion-rights voter I can only look at his past behaviour, and accordingly it's pretty clear who the correct choice is if it's an issue you care about.
Hi - I co-wrote the BBC Verify fact check piece.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77l28myezko
I’d be interested to know, given the evidence presented in our story, how people would describe the baseless claims about eating of animals by Haitian migrants in Springfield. It is of course impossible to prove a negative, so when evidence of an event is as thin as it is in this example, what words do you think are accurate?
Hi Mike!
I really appreciate the work BBC verify and other fact-checkers do, but did think the word "baseless" felt biased in this instance so I was critical. Would be interested to hear if others agree or if I'm the exception and was the one wrong in this instance.
I think a word such as "dubious" to convey skepticism could be more appropriate. As a fact checking piece, rather than an opinion piece, I wonder if an adjective is needed at all. The context provides plenty of evidence for a reader to come to their own opinion that the claim is likely baseless.
Curious to hear your thoughts, I would say there's a decent chance I'm not right in this instance and maybe it is important to word things strongly if it's the best way to combat misinformation. I worry that people will increasingly perceive things as nuanced (even if they are not), which could lead to them dismissing fact-checks which try to paint things very black and white.
I take your point - but if we accept your logic I wonder if “dubious” is just as biased. In fact I suspect it fails in the same way, if that’s the test. “Unevidenced”? I think having looked at the subject in some depth, to not describe it in some way up front would be a dereliction of duty. Most people don’t read the whole article. Would also be interested in what others think.
Yeah unevidenced sounds good. Overall though you guys are doing a great job (much better than these newsletter haha). Appreciate the willingness to engage!