https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/who-fact-checks-the-fact-checkers-research/

“‘Fact-checking’ fact checkers: A data-driven approach,” a 22-page October research article from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, examined practices of U.S. fact-checking organizations Snopes, PolitiFact and Logically, along with The Australian Associated Press.

Sian Lee, Aiping Xiong, Harseung Seo and Dongwon Lee of Penn State University’s College of Information Sciences and Technology did the peer-reviewed research.

The Penn State researchers found U.S. fact-checking spikes during major news events. In recent years, that was during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. Further, the researchers said, misinformation’s spread can mislead and harm people and society.

The researchers examined 11,639 fact-checking articles from Snopes and 10,710 from PolitiFact from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2022. They found Snopes checked more “real claims” — claims that rate true or mostly true — with 28.7% versus 11% for PolitiFact.

Looking widely, the researchers found high agreement when Snopes and PolitiFact probed the same information. Of 749 matching claims (examining the same information), 521 received identical ratings and 228 (30.4%) had diverging ratings. But, the researchers found nuances caused nearly all of these divergent verdicts — granularity of ratings (Snopes and PolitiFact scales differ slightly); differences in focus; differences in fact-checked information and the different timing of the fact-checks.

Adjusting for these systematic discrepancies, Penn State’s researchers found just one conflicting rating among the 749 matching claims.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Citation needed

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

I’m assuming that’s a “no” because you can’t defend your claim with reliable sources.

Thank you for playing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[citation needed]

Wanna try the “padding” thing again?

In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.

The article in fact does elaborate on the wage increases, as I’ve quoted. The choice you make to decide that “meaningfulness” only involves narrow comparisons to housing prices is personal, as well to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite and uninformed view that wholly ignores those who benefit from increased wages (maybe to pay for increases in housing and other things?). Should wages be stagnant (as the other user tried to say) then I feel that would also be meaningful.

These are not statistics in a vacuum. That is grossly misinterpreting the article, that is very clear on it’s assertions. I would hope that you could find a reliable source that argues that wage increases are meaningless to drive that point home as hard as you two are attempting to do.

This is an (unsourced) opinion to say this is meaningless, and the article describes the meaningfulness of worker wage increases.

You’re a different user, my mistake. So you admit, contrary to what you said before, that wages aren’t stagnant. I see that in your opinion this is meaningless (I see no reliable sources included other than your personal opinion), however, the article, with data, directly refutes this notion that there is no meaningful movement in wages. Again, this is a motte and bailey argument.

Motte: vague assertions about the economy

Bailey: data in the article is “padded” for “the economy”

I don’t see anything informative or constructive about this conversation, especially considering you have abandoned defending your assertion that the numbers in the article are somehow “padded.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pad

2: to expand or increase especially with needless, misleading, or fraudulent matter

I won’t be continuing this discussion with you.

FTA:

Wages Are Rising, Good for Workers, But Not So Much as to Fuel Inflation

Average hourly earnings grew at a 4.1% annual rate in March, down from 4.5% at the start of the year. With consumer inflation currently 3.2% annually, that means workers are seeing gains in real income.

“The reduced pace of wage gains will alleviate some concerns of reignited inflation driven in part by the strong labor market,” said Nick Bunker, director, North American research at Indeed. “And while it has slowed, wage growth remains faster than the pace of inflation, insulating workers from undue harm.”

It does not seem like you’re addressing what the article says about the labor market at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

Also, for a third time, can you specifically, with reliable sources, identify the items you feel are “padded” in the article?

FTA:

A Rising Tide Is Lifting Many Boats

The surge in employment has benefited many groups who either have historically been left behind in the labor market or were disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

In the key age group of 25-54, the percentage of Blacks working reached 77.7% in 2023, surpassing its previous high in 1999, while for Hispanics that number hit 77.9%, beating the prior high of 77.4% in 2019.

Women, meanwhile, have recovered the ground they lost during the pandemic, when many were forced to leave the labor force to care for children at home as schools closed or taking care of elderly parents. They also suffered disproportionately as traditional sources of hiring for women in the leisure and hospitality and health care sectors closed down.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your comment about “the economy” as it relates to this article about the labor market. Are you suggesting that this article is misinformation? This is also meandering a bit, could you elaborate on what is “padded” in the article?