What's that point if you don't even read what others post?
I read it - that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
It was a definitive statement by Kerry - '100% of the the Chemical weapons have been removed'. Now either 100% had been removed or they hadn't - you cant say that the claim is true if only 50% have been removed.
Politifact have admitted that subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong and they shouldn't have said that he was being truthful - so I'm not sure you are arguing against that.
You are arguing politifact can't be trusted by making claims that they state they are 100% the source of all truth.
They have never said that.
The very fact they have a process to correct mistakes shows that. And they used it in this case.
I think this makes them more trustworthy.
I have to agree with Squiffy. They never claimed to be proffering absolute truth, just attributing a score to the best of their ability.
The 'arbiter of truth' insinuation doesn't ring true.
Anyone with common sense wouldn't take any singular source of information as gospel truth.
Well they have set themselves up to "rate the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others who speak up in American politics" - so if they are incapable of that then the whole point of their existence disappears.
You might as well just let the politicians argue amongst themselves.
But that's exactly what they do, no?
Rate it by attaching a score?
Sigh.
They rate the accuracy using known sources impartially and fairly.
They do not and have never claimed to be the source of all truth.
They are perfectly capable of giving a rating to political pronouncements using their documented process which includes how they deal with new information and corrections.
It's ridiculous to say they can't be trusted. Unless you can show where they have knowingly lied.
This is going round in circles. If you don't like these sites then ignore them. Simple.
Wasting your time ...
He's a Trumper either looking to poison the well (or a troll doing the same), or he acting as a brainwashed stooge for the the alt right mumbo jumbo propaganda merchants rubbish he has bought into, poisoning the well by proxy.
It's one thing to be skeptical and question what we are told and accepted wisdom, that's healthy.
It's another thing entirely to do so while misrepresenting and taking things totally out of context to the point that they try to pass off disruptive misinformation as genuine critical thinking.
It's dangerous and damaging to society and needs a zero tolerance policy just like fake news.
That is not an objective and reasoned conclusion. In fact there is a touch of 'flaming' in what you say.
The OP is questioning the accuracy and possible bias of fact checking websites. The newspaper media operate some of these websites.
Can it truthfully be said any political fact finding operation is total impartial? Completely non-partisan? Conclusions reached fair and without any bias?
...Hmmmmm