Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose we wanted to create an "ideal" unbiased, non-partisan fact-checking system. I suspect the only way to do this is to have a panel of well-educated, widely-respected people who represent a wide diversity of social/political/economic/philosophical viewpoints (although I'm open to other suggestions). Who would you recommend to be on this panel? In your view, who are the most intelligent, fair-minded liberals and conservatives such that, if they were on this panel, you would have a high degree of respect for their analysis of a controversial issue?
(Or, if you think that a panel of this sort already exists, please tell me about it.)
Frankly I'm not sure it's possible at this point in time. We're told that there once was a time when journalists/researchers/scientists/etc. used to put integrity above personal bias and partisanship but to the extent that it was ever true, that cat is now out of the bag and it takes time to get it back in again. There is also a lack of public trust that would prevent the perception of integrity even where it existed.
You need to have someone who places a high value on truth.
Agreed. But the question is: Are there any actual people who both right and left-wing people could agree place a high value on truth? So far Jim Webb and Condoleezza Rice have been suggested. Does anyone here think that either one of them does not place a reasonably high value on truth? If so, can you specify anything they've said or done that causes you to think they cannot be trusted to weigh both side of an argument? Personally, they both seem like plausible choices to me.
I would throw Michael Steel's name in the ring as well.
I'm not so sure about Steel. I would not mind if he expressed skepticism about climate change. If he had said something like "I have not carefully studied the science of this, but I'm inclined to think that the Earth is not actually warming" or "I don't think the Earth is warming but, even if it is, I'm skeptical that human can do much to stop it now" then I'd say okay. But, instead, he has been doing what I've been referring to as "forcefully asserting" his opinion on the subject. For example, says this:
"We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is now covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right?" http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...global-warming
I don't know him well enough to say for sure, but personally I have no confidence that Steel would pass a "devil's advocate" test. I strongly suspect that he is parroting the opinions of people who, themselves, were not fair-minded experts on the subject of climate change.
Actually, if I am right about Steel, then I think that he has, in this case, given a perfect example of what I have been saying is immoral (in this other thread). Climate change is an important topic and Steel has a wide audience. IF, in fact, human pollution is causing global warming and, IF, in fact, it would be beneficial for humans to cut down on this pollution, then Steel, and others like him, should be held morally accountable if millions or billions of people suffer or die unnecessarily because of preventable human activity. As I see it, this is why we need something like a panel of intelligent, fair-minded advocates from both sides of controversial issues who proponents of both sides can respect (even if they don't agree with their positions).
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-11-2017 at 09:27 AM..
Suppose we wanted to create an "ideal" unbiased, non-partisan fact-checking system. I suspect the only way to do this is to have a panel of well-educated, widely-respected people who represent a wide diversity of social/political/economic/philosophical viewpoints (although I'm open to other suggestions). Who would you recommend to be on this panel? In your view, who are the most intelligent, fair-minded liberals and conservatives such that, if they were on this panel, you would have a high degree of respect for their analysis of a controversial issue?
(Or, if you think that a panel of this sort already exists, please tell me about it.)
There are already several. We all know what they are.
None of this "only MY version of the facts shall be used!" stuff, a la Trump.
Snopes, politifact, and others exist. They are accepted worldwide as being accurate and factual. Nothing is going to change that.
Yes, they all indicate that Trump lies more than any other politician. That's because he does.
I think long standing competent newspapers do the responsible thing and fact check their stories. People just don't like the truth so they will call it fake news. That will always be the case and I cannot see a situation where everyone trusts an independent party to hand out the truth. Someone will just call it a tool of the left or a tool of the right.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchoc
Not possible. If it was anti Trump at all, it would obviously be rigged.
Trump would no doubt tell us so, just like he told us the election he won was rigged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
