Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 11, 2018

A conservative media outlet has fact-checking power at Facebook and -- guess what -- it's using that to censor liberal media outlets. The Weekly Standard, which is one of just five outlets that Facebook allows to "fact check" other publications, flagged a ThinkProgress article about Brett Kavanaugh's position on Roe v. Wade as false. That's a serious threat, not just to ThinkProgress but to other groups sharing the article[.] The Weekly Standard has no liberal counterpart as a fact-checker at Facebook, and no wonder -- Facebook's head of global news partnerships is Campbell Brown, who is a right-wing activist against public education and teachers unions with the deep ties to Republicans that entails.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Here's a link to the Think Progress article that got censored and one to their article on the FB censoring of that article:

Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade last week and almost no one noticed

thinkprogress.org

Facebook's idea of ‘fact-checking': Censoring ThinkProgress because conservative site told them to

A perfect example of how Facebook is catering to conservatives.

The article in question, which this reporter wrote, pointed out that, when you read a statement Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearing alongside a statement he made in a 2017, it becomes clear he is communicating that he opposes Roe v. Wade. Our article is factually accurate and The Weekly Standard's allegation against us is wrong.

thinkprogress.org

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-11 03:30 PM | Reply

So nothing has changed at FB.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-09-11 10:47 PM | Reply

Now I remember why I totally ignore Facebook.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-09-11 11:22 PM | Reply

Breaking News: Democrats stunned that right wing supporters are using their censorship apparatus against them, request more censorship.

You're going to have to grow up and deal with people talking ---- on the internet, or deal with them using your attempt to control them against you.

Oh by the way, this has been happening for years on real liberal sites. You've just come around to figuring it out because someone sunk their teeth into your precious center-left ThinkProgress.

As an aside, this site would have never made it if it started today. I remember the pure rage in those early posts and it was great fun. It was a lot closer to 4Chan than many would like to admit.

*Pours one out for --------------*

#4 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-09-11 11:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You just killed your own post, ben. Rob left the retort because he was doxxed and harassed irl.

Where's that get "fun"? Rcade had to change the site to avoid potential law suits.

#5 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-09-11 11:33 PM | Reply

Rob left the retort because he was doxxed and harassed irl.

Where's that get "fun"? Rcade had to change the site to avoid potential law suits.

Rob's experience was not mine, and he was having a great time until someone decided to make it personal. That is one instance among thousands of posts where people ripped each other to shreds but somehow had the self-control to not dox each other, and come back to text battle another day. That was a lot of fun.

It is ironic that the doxxing of a right leaning user forced policy changes.

#6 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-09-11 11:50 PM | Reply

he was doxxed by a right wing poster.

many here were by that same poster.

#7 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-09-11 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There were other instances of doxing, or attempted doxing, besides Rob.

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-11 11:54 PM | Reply

Here's the real irony:

It is ironic that the doxxing of a right leaning user forced policy changes.
#6 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-09-11 11:50 PM

he was doxxed by a right wing poster.
many here were by that same poster.
#7 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-09-11 11:54

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-11 11:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"(Rob) was having a great time until someone decided to make it personal."

---- him.

I had nothing to do with his doxxing (didn't know about it until long after), but he tried to dox me, and he threatened me, saying he was coming to get me. ---- him. He dug his own grave. He also went to another site (run by Nanc) claiming to be "Danfoth, from the Retort", and flung ---- everywhere. ---- him.

Rex pulled that crap, too. Of course, after threatening me with a self-destruct email, I wrote back saying it had self-destructed before I could read it...so the dumb---- sent it again!!! I got a screenshot before it went away. Unfortunately, that computer had a kernel panic, so nothing was retrievable. But ---- him, too.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-12 12:10 AM | Reply

I don't remember the other doxxings.

Here's the real irony:

That isn't irony...and that means this is the real irony.

#11 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-09-12 12:19 AM | Reply

You said: "It is ironic that the doxxing of a right leaning user forced policy changes."

To me, the real irony is that the doxee and the doxed were both right-wingers.

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-12 12:28 AM | Reply

#10 So much for the so-called "fun times" BB was waxing nostalgic over.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-12 12:30 AM | Reply

See Danforth, it only took a few minutes to get you fired up and thinking back to the glory days. Really got the juices flowing for an OG. Four F-bombs in six sentences.

We need some more of that.

#14 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-09-12 12:33 AM | Reply

To me, the real irony is that the doxee and the doxed were both right-wingers.

My reference was to the political leanings of Rcade and Rob_A.

#15 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-09-12 12:35 AM | Reply

"My reference was to the political leanings of Rcade and Rob_A."

I know. My reference was to the political leanings of Rob A and the unnamed doxer.

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-12 12:38 AM | Reply

Rob's experience was not mine, and he was having a great time until someone decided to make it personal. That is one instance among thousands of posts where people ripped each other to shreds but somehow had the self-control to not dox each other, and come back to text battle another day. That was a lot of fun.
It is ironic that the doxxing of a right leaning user forced policy changes.

POSTED BY BEN_BERKKAKE AT 2018-09-11 11:50 PM | REPLY

Mike Siesel was the one who got into Rob's personal life.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-12 12:53 AM | Reply

"Mike Siesel was the one who got into Rob's personal life."

Was he the one who romanced and married another poster? As I recall, it blew up quickly, and he accused her of being very dishonest about her personal life.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-12 01:12 AM | Reply

Was he the one who romanced and married another poster? As I recall, it blew up quickly, and he accused her of being very dishonest about her personal life.

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-09-12 01:12 AM | REPLY

Yes InWi aka Lisa. No marriage though.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-12 01:17 AM | Reply

What was the beef? Do you remember?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-12 01:19 AM | Reply

What was the beef? Do you remember?

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-09-12 01:19 AM | REPLY

Not allowed to say. RCADE's orders. I'll tell you in email though if you want to know.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-12 01:20 AM | Reply

"Not allowed to say. RCADE's orders."

Oh, hell, the statute of limitations has long run out on that one.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-12 01:23 AM | Reply

"Not allowed to say. RCADE's orders."

Oh, hell, the statute of limitations has long run out on that one.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-12 01:24 AM | Reply

Sorry for the double. Slow computer, so I clicked it again. My bad.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-12 01:25 AM | Reply

Probably the funniest Dox was when Buffalo Bob wanted to fight Walt, so he emailed him his name and address and Walt posted it.

I know Lisa's side of the story with Ozarkaggie (his original DR name) but since it was shared with me via private email I'm not going to post it here.

It was an ugly and messy break-up.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-12 08:45 AM | Reply

Sorry to deflect from whatever all ^^^ that up there is back to the article in question.

So the fact-checkers correctly indicate that the thinkprogress.org's (TP going forward) statement that Kavanaugh said something that he clearly didn't is factually and technically correct. TP could have salvaged their opining to being more truthful by adjusting their false title to include stuff like 'could be construed' or 'might be seen as' or something along those lines. He very clearly did not say what TP is claiming, and rightfully that should be made known to the people who are accessing TP's opinion piece.

#26 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-12 10:09 AM | Reply

--The Weekly Standard

Figures they would use a neocon nevertrumper rag that rooted for Clinton.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-12 10:12 AM | Reply

I wonder if this now means that articles about Trump which quote his lies in the titles can now be designated fake news? If so, that could result in a major, and in my view necessary, correction to headlines that read along the lines of: Trump says blah blah blah instead of the more accurate Trump claims or Trump falsely claims.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-12 11:04 AM | Reply

Good article on the topic:

When Fact-Checking Becomes Censorship

ThinkProgress is as liberal as the Weekly Standard is conservative. I read and admire writers at both websites. (By way of disclosure, I am friends with both Millhiser and Rachael Larimore, a former Slate staffer who is now the Weekly Standard's online managing editor.)

slate.com

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-12 11:21 AM | Reply

BTW, the writer of the TP piece indicates the title refers to this definition of "say":

3 a : indicate, show: the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to: communicate: a glance that said all that was necessary

www.merriam-webster.com

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-12 11:41 AM | Reply

That's a serious threat, not just to ThinkProgress but to other groups sharing the article

POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 09:31 PM | 30 COMMENTS | PERMALINK | COMMENT ON THIS ENTRY |

Stop sharing speculation as a fact. It's not difficult, unless you are a professional infotainer.

#31 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-09-13 07:13 AM | Reply

it becomes clear he is communicating that he opposes Roe v. Wade. Our article is factually accurate and The Weekly Standard's allegation against us is wrong. #1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-11 03:30 PM

Except that it doesn't become clear that he is communicating that. That is entirely the opinion of the writer that Kavanaugh has 'clearly communicated' that. It is not a fact. Any fact checker should point out that what TP is claiming as a clearly stated fact, is really only their opinion. It is also perfectly reasonable for fact checkers to point out which parts of sentences are untrue depending on which definition of words opinion writers use.

If Kavanaugh had cracked some jokes at his hearing that had people laughing and TP had this as their headline :
'Kavanaugh murders at Senate Judiciary hearing', do you not think some fact checking clarification would be in order even though comedians 'murder it' all the time?

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-13 08:37 AM | Reply

This is an opinion piece, not a straight news article. If FB is going to start labeling opinion pieces as fake news, then they need to do it across the board.

From the opinion piece linked to in #29:

Here's the rather obvious problem with the Weekly Standard's position: Millhiser is an opinion writer. He is also an attorney who clerked on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In his Kavanaugh article -- as in most of his work -- he is making an argument, attempting to persuade readers of his viewpoint. And in this case his views, as expressed in his headline, are perfectly defensible. Jamal Greene, a professor at Columbia Law School, and Jim Oleske, a professor at Lewis and Clark Law School, made nearly identical points. There is, no doubt, room for disagreement here. But this scholarly support does indicate that Millhiser's assertion is, at a minimum, not "false news."

It's easy to flip the tables on the Weekly Standard. Consider a March article with the headline "Actually, Palestinians Are Doing Pretty Well Under Israeli Rule." Many Palestinians living in the occupied territories seem to disagree. Or this 2009 piece, which states that the "most profound aspect of marriage" is "protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex." Is that a fact? The answer is surely that it depends on who you ask. And that is the point of the kind of journalism practiced by the Weekly Standard and ThinkProgress (and Slate for that matter): Writers express and defend their opinions, readers draw their own conclusions.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 09:53 AM | Reply

If Kavanaugh had cracked some jokes at his hearing that had people laughing and TP had this as their headline :
'Kavanaugh murders at Senate Judiciary hearing', do you not think some fact checking clarification would be in order even though comedians 'murder it' all the time?

I think that reading such a titled article would be enough to make the clarification clear, but I'm good with FB cracking down and cleaning up on misleading headlines as long as it is done across the board and includes keeping the President's false and misleading statements out of them as well.

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 09:59 AM | Reply

Title: Gal_Tuesday supportive of online monopolies suppressing free speech!
Article: 'I'm good with FB cracking down and cleaning up on misleading headlines...includes keeping the President's false and misleading statements out of them'
=-)

#35 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-13 10:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is an opinion piece, not a straight news article.

#33 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-09-13 09:53 AM | FLAG:

Nothing in the article claims it's an op-ed. It's a new article pushing a narrative as fact.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-09-13 10:11 AM | Reply

"Ian Millhiser is the Justice Editor for ThinkProgress, and the author of Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted."

Milhiser is an editor, not a straight news reporter.

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 10:33 AM | Reply

Oops, sorry, Milhiser refers to himself a reporter:

The article in question, which this reporter wrote, pointed out that, when you read a statement Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearing alongside a statement he made in a 2017, it becomes clear he is communicating that he opposes Roe v. Wade. Our article is factually accurate and The Weekly Standard's allegation against us is wrong.

Bottom line, as I said earlier, I'm good with the policy as long as it is applied across the board:

The Weekly Standard has a history of placing right-wing ideology before accurate reporting. Among other things, it labeled the Iraq War "A War to Be Proud Of" in 2005, and it ran an article in 2017 labeling climate science "Dadaist Science," and promoted that article with the phrase "look under the hood on climate change ‘science' and what you see isn't pretty."

thinkprogress.org

I think FB should put a left-wing leaning site on their factchecking board and require more than one of the factchecking entities to label something fake news before it is given that designation by FB.

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 10:40 AM | Reply

Title: Gal_Tuesday supportive of online monopolies suppressing free speech!
Article: 'I'm good with FB cracking down and cleaning up on misleading headlines...includes keeping the President's false and misleading statements out of them'
=-)

Suppressing free speech? Nah. Fairly attempting to label fake news as fake? Yeah. Fairly attempting to distinguish between straight news stories and opinion pieces? Yeah. Very trick that last one since the line between straight news stories and talking heads sounding off has been blurred beyond all recognition for years now, online, in print and on cable "news" shows. I'm not saying news analysis is bad; it is necessary. Without analysis, all we'd have are reports about what Trump said, for example, without the context of pointing out his immediate lies and the greater context of the frequency and repeated nature of them.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 10:52 AM | Reply

"Stop sharing speculation as a fact."

It's analysis based on other things Kavanaugh has said. Is his analysis faulty? If so, in what way and why? Maybe some of the lawyers on here can weigh in:

The Weekly Standard's fact-check appears to hinge on the definition of the word "said."

Kavanaugh cited in his confirmation hearing the "Glucksberg test" -- which refers to Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision establishing that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. Under Glucksberg, courts should determine which rights are protected by the Constitution by asking which rights are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."

Kavanaugh also said in 2017 that "even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg's approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey."

Our article also cited law professors Jim Oleske and Jamal Greene, both of whom reached similar conclusions regarding Kavanaugh's embrace of Glucksberg.

The Weekly Standard's piece labeling this piece "false" provides no analysis of this argument. It merely asserts that our "article does not provide evidence that ‘Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade.'"

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, the verb "say" or "said" can mean to "indicate," "show," or "communicate" an idea. Our argument is that Kavanuagh indicated, showed, or communicated his intention to overrule Roe when he endorsed the Gluckberg test after saying that Gluckberg is inconsistent with Roe.


thinkprogress.org

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 11:04 AM | Reply

BTW, are there any right-leaning media like the WSJ, Weekly Standard and National Review seriously making the case that Kavanaugh won't vote to overturn Roe? If so, I'm surprised a bunch of Evangelicals and other rightwing groups aren't turning against him (and Trump and the Federalist Society) quicker than you can say "RHINO".

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 11:25 AM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-09-13 11:04 AM | FLAG:

Doesn't matter. The headline is false and the article is actually an op-ed. The headline is what shows up to people on Facebook. That's why it didn't survive Facebook's peer review of the Weekly Standard's flagging.

#42 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-09-13 11:43 AM | Reply

The Weekly Standard's Kavanaugh Fact Check Was Correct -Slate

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-09-13 11:47 AM | Reply

"The Weekly Standard is one of only five outlets that enjoys the power to "fact check" other people's work on Facebook. The other four are the Associated Press and three outlets that specialize in fact-checking -- Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes.com. No left-leaning outlet has this special ability to "fact check" other writers' work."

Did the other 4 outlets mark the article as fake news or just WS?

"The Weekly Standard's Kavanaugh Fact Check Was Correct -Slate"

Not everyone agrees with that conclusion:

Facebook launched fact-checking to screen out bona fide fake news -- stories about the pope endorsing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton having Parkinson's disease. Millhiser's story plainly falls outside this limited scope. The Weekly Standard may disagree with [ThinkProgress'] headline, but it is simply wrong to call it ‘a verifiable lie' when it rests on a nuanced and subjective legal argument.

slate.com

Also:

Four of Facebook's chosen fact-checkers – the Associated Press, Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes – are widely trusted and nonpartisan. The fifth, the Weekly Standard, has generally high-quality editorial content with a conservative ideological bent.

The phrase "one of these things is not like the other" comes to mind. The Associated Press, of course, is one of the world's largest independent news organizations. Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes are arguably the three highest-profile fact-checking websites online, and none of them have a reputation for being especially partisan or ideological.

www.msnbc.com

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 01:24 PM | Reply

Not impressed. "They're not on our side!" doesn't mean WS is wrong.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-09-13 02:20 PM | Reply

#45 Your "Not impressed." doesn't mean they are right either.

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-13 03:24 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort