🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Our “disinformation experts” are at it again, this time churning out a whole passel of pseudoscience under the aegis of once-respected Nature magazine to prove that icky, stupid right-wingers are dumb dumb dummies and that they deserve to be banned from X!
Not like the supergeniuses of the modern left, who always get everything right and never tell lies.
A new study — presumably peer reviewed — purports to show that Trump supporters and conservatives shared “low quality” news more often than their more enlightened counterparts and thus deserved the “politically asymmetric” sanctions.
All five of the authors list themselves as “Google Scholars,” by the way: In other words, they have the seal of approval from the Big Tech outfit whose AI turned out to generate images of black Nazis and female Asian Vikings to serve the cause of “equity” at the expense of the truth.
And this study is another case of “garbage in, garbage out”: A huge part of its definition of “low quality” seems to mean sources that don’t rely on “fact checking” — which as the past eight years have shown has become a spurious and utterly partisan endeavor.
Curious about what misinformation these “low quality” sites are spreading?
Here’s a sample: the “unambiguously false” claim (per a paper cited in the Nature study) that “COVID-19 was created in a lab.”
Trouble is, this “unambiguous” falsehood is (per the US federal government) true.
Unsurprisingly, the No. 1 “high quality” news source shared by lefty users in the study was The New York Times.
Right-leaning users shared Fox most often.
Quickly: Which of those sources on balance has been more correct since 2016?
The Times was wrong about Russiagate, writing story after story on Donald Trump’s alleged collusion based on obviously fake documents and never once apologizing for its journalistic malpractice.
It was wrong about COVID on pretty much every aspect of the pandemic, from the efficacy of blue-state responses to the risk the virus presented to kids to the lab-leak theory and on and on and on.
The Gray Lady helped lead the charge in trying to discredit The Post’s 100% accurate reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Hah: The very folks accusing us of spreading “disinformation” were actually doing so themselves.
The Times also nakedly, openly lied about Joe Biden’s deteriorating mental fitness for years in order to bolster his electoral prospects, then turned on a dime to admit he’s going gaga.
And all of that somehow got through the industrial fact-checking complex.
Wonder why?
The answer’s simple: It helped Democrats politically, which is the purpose of “fact checking.”
Keep in mind, no one is actually fooled by this.
A look at the data tables provided by the study’s authors proves that.
Consider CNN.com, ranked very highly by “fact checkers” at .84 out of a possible 1.
When rated by “politically balanced laypeople,” it gets a .47.
Sounds about right to us: CNN was the biggest, fakest voice on TV for the entirety of the Trump administration, blaring Russigate lies in primetime.
Modern-day Pravda MSNBC gets a .66 from the fact-checkers but a .44 from the normies.
And the Times itself, the holy grail of “false but true” lib journalism, ranks at .91 from fact checkers and .45 otherwise.
What’s most obscene about all this, of course, is that despite the endless, humiliating public failure of “fact checking,” this paper was clearly written in service of the larger progressive goal of suppressing speech.
Both as we head into the last weeks of the 2024 election and forever after.
A goal neatly summed up by the insufferable (and incompetent!) John Kerry, who recently pronounced the First Amendment to be a “major block” to censorship of information embarrassing to his fellow Dems.
He’s right!
And Americans should be thankful.