[raxxorrax]

Fact checkers would have me believe that we are constantly victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. I think the worth of fact checkers has already been concluded.

The truth is that you should be aware of the general bias a publication has. Also how they can be linked together via parent companies. If you have multiple sources with different bias, you should be fine.

The WSJ for example belongs to the Murdoch conglomerate. There are a lot more of those. Of course it is unknown how much influence there is on their editorial board. But still important to keep that in mind.

[kypro]

I agree. The concept of a fact checker seems extremely flawed to me. Beyond just reporting the news the media is suppose to also fact check it. And to be fair they claim to do just that, but it turns out they have biases... So the solution to that problem is add another layer? What do we do when it turns out they also have biases? Add another layer? A fact fact checker?

I rather have no fact checkers at all personally. I'd prefer to live in a world where everyone distrusts the media than a world in which everyone trusts a few bias reports claim to be the arbiters of reality.

[pjc50]

This is the thing - while there does appear to be a foreign covert disinformation campaign, it's dwarfed by the domestic "legitimate" disinformation put out by Murdoch and other press outlets. Or people like Alex Jones.

[raxxorrax]

True. I am not disputing there aren't any efforts to manipulate voters. I would be surprised if there were not. But the relevancy that the media tried to transport just wasn't adequate.

I genuinely believe that many just have been played, but that could have been mitigated by providing at least a somewhat believable perspective.