Bob Cesca can fuck off quite frankly

Call it a “Fact Summit.”

The idea is to gather a team of writers, strategists, thinkers, editors and other experts from both sides — reasonable, rational minds from a pool of conservative, moderate and liberal players — who are all on the same side of the truth divide. Lock them in a room to collectively build a database of trusted firsthand news sources: publications online and off, independent agencies, opinion sources, television and radio networks, newspapers and so forth that have displayed significant attention to the highest level of accuracy and journalistic integrity possible with the goal of pushing back against the rising flood of fake news and propaganda sites.

This will, of course, all be entirely unbiased. Ho Yus.

Enter the Fact Summit.

The Fact Summit wouldn’t be a censorship body, nor would it actively engage in fact-checking activities. Its goal would be to act as a set of informal gate-keepers, determining which institutions are worthy of citation, linking, reading and supporting, while also calling out the fakers and deceivers. The multi-partisan nature of the panel will add legitimacy to the findings and will encourage consumers on the right and left to take the results more seriously.

Ho Yus. Completely and absolutely impartial and bipartisan:

For example, a hyper-partisan aggregator might publish a story about horrendously rising health insurance premium rates, while leaving out details about the historical steepness of past, pre-Obamacare rate hikes.

Fuck off Matey

Likewise, without experts to act as fact-sherpas for news consumers, most readers are simply wandering aimlessly through their news feeds, sharing whatever conforms to their personal politics, rather than what’s vetted for accuracy and integrity.

The problem is whose accuracy, isn’t it?

So, yes, fuck off matey. Right off, along with the horse you rode in on.

37 thoughts on “Bob Cesca can fuck off quite frankly”

  1. Anyone who represents themselves as a fucking “fact sherpa” to the uninformed masses, should be heaved off the short route from Mt Everest! The smugness, the self-righteousness, the lack of self awareness must count as serious provocation or even incitement to self preservation. The only alternative is Ark B.

  2. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as Juvenal remarked two thousand odd years ago and which sentiment brought up to date might indeed be expressed as So, yes, fuck off matey. Right off, along with the horse you rode in on.

  3. “The Fact Summit wouldn’t be a censorship body, nor would it actively engage in fact-checking activities. Its goal would be to act as a set of informal gate-keepers, determining which institutions are worthy of citation, linking, reading and supporting, while also calling out the fakers and deceivers. “

    If it doesn’t do the former, it can’t possibly do the latter. Can it?

  4. Donald Trump has been elected partly because of the corruption and dishonesty of the mainstream media, they have been shown to be corrupt and dishonest, and now they are putting themselves forward as bastions of truth and honesty fighting a wave of fake and biased news reporting?

    Whut?

  5. There would be a certain amount of satisfaction in calling them out when they get things wrong though – particularly if they call themselves something as ridiculous as The Fact Summit.

  6. Wankers making shit up to suit their own agenda is the price we pay for freedom of the press. Absolutely worth it.

  7. This would actually be brilliant. Because, short of massive 1984-style censorship (which is now impossible), all they can do is offer a service, which will be enthusiastically lapped up by those who want it and soundly ignored by all the people who are already ignoring these pillocks. This whole thing is just “The echo chamber needs stronger walls! And more echo!” They’e fucking themselves.

  8. They always give themselves away in the same way: “We are absolutely non-partisan and objective. No bias here, nooo Sir. We will point out errors without fear or favour; you can take that promise to the bank. For example look at that egregious lie told by the other side, THEM THEM THEM. And that’s a FACT.”

  9. TMB: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

    My favorite Latin phrase because liberals like to use it usually without realizing it’s referring to women being sluts.

  10. The role of the media is overplayed.

    People’s gut feelings are generally accurate and not swayed by the media.

    Most of the population have a gut feeling that Corbyn is a inept wanker and that whilst the Tories aren’t great, they’re probably the best of a bad bunch.

    Which is accurate enough to be the basis on which to vote.

  11. “horrendously rising health insurance premium rates, while leaving out details about the historical steepness of past, pre-Obamacare rate hikes.”

    Problem is, even a debunking of something like that requires biased interpretation of what the salient facts and considerations are, one might have to make a judgement (which isnt an unbiased fact) on the opportunity costs elsewhere.

    True unbiased fact checking would be inane stuff about reported factual figures in the past (tonnes of steel produced etc). This would be a service where it suggests that you should think a bit more and points you into the direction of other considerations.

    “writers, strategists, thinkers, editors and other experts from both sides — reasonable, rational minds from a pool of conservative, moderate and liberal players”

    So writers, strategists and editors are neither experts in knowing anything nor can you trust them to drop everything (biases) which makes them useful writers, strategists and editors in the first place. You might have some ONS wonk who can provide factual figures and put them in context, but why the other selection of people, why not me or anyone else, what skills or knowledge do they have that we dont possess to prosecute this task?

    Also what seperates moderates, conservatives and liberals is their biases, what values they hold and prefer above other premises.

    Full Fact already exist, this is just an attempt to beef up the idea that commentators are high priests of truth and insight and can, like an Archangel, bestow truth on the sheep. Except they arent high priests of truth, no one is.

  12. There is at lest one important threshold problem with the proposal. US Constitution says:

    Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press

    “No law” seems to me pretty clear. It means no law. Whatever these educated morons come up with will be a violation of the US Constitution.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  13. Bloke in North Dorset

    What a great idea. They could fund themselves by flogging True Fact Marks to be displayed on articles and blogs that they approve.

    They should get Murphy in to advise them about how well is Fair Tax Mark is doing, that would have the added benefit of setting a few feathers flying.

  14. Let me guess – none of this would put a stop to the ‘Google et al are nasty tax avoiders/evaders because they follow the law’ schtick thats gets thrown around, but it would put a stop to anyone pointing out that Muslims are disproportionately involved in terrorism and child sex abuse?

    It says a lot about the MSM that I was reduced to reading Zero Hedge as a source of info on the US election – it was one of the few places one could read something that wasn’t ‘Isn’t Hillary wonderful, and will win by 10 points, and Trump is an evil bigot and so is everyone who votes for him’.

  15. “horrendously rising health insurance premium rates, while leaving out details about the historical steepness of past, pre-Obamacare rate hikes.”

    Past, pre Obamacare rate hikes dont change the fact that premiums are rising horrendously now. Especially if OCare was sold as reducing premium rate rises. Gives his game away with his own example.

  16. Are there any lefties who are on the right side of the truth divide?

    OF COURSE THERE ARE !! This is the reason leaders of the left must devote–on an almost constant basis–a large proportion of personal, intellectual, and financial energies to maintaining what is, in essence, a stitched-together façade of lies and half-truths. It doesn’t work very well but, much of the time, keeps roughly half–even a bit more–in their camp. (Not really so remarkable when considered the large portion of the population “average or below” in the attribute (“IQ”) by means of which we humans distinguish between truth and falsity.

  17. “Are there any lefties who are on the right side of the truth divide?”

    No, because they all look at things in relative rather than absolute truth. To a Leftist there is only ‘the truth as I see it at this very point in time’, and as the point in time alters, so does the version of the ‘truth’. There needs to be no logical consistency between different time points. They might be correct, by accident or design at one given time, but no conclusions can be made about what their position will be subsequently.

  18. I, for one, wouldn’t mind a competent editor or curator who clearly established their own slant and pointed at stuff which was relevant to things of interest to them.

    Sort of, umm, like the various Tims active here 🙂

  19. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “Its goal would be to act as a set of informal gate-keepers”

    What this twat fails to realise is that the new media are an explicit rejection of “gate-keepers”, informal or otherwise. There’s not much point in barring the gate if the fence has been kicked down and people are streaming past on either side.

  20. the idea of “fact sherpas for news consumers” translates as “WE KNOW BETTER YOU IGNORANT PROLES. STOP VOTING WRONG”

  21. Brave Fart and others can correct my Scots, but

    Would the Lord the giftie gie us
    To see orsen as others see us

  22. Isn’t it obvious, the internet must be regulated by sufficiently qualified people, these Alt sites are abusing Free Speech by the equivalent of shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre, we have to stem this evil tide.

    You sheep cannot be allowed to wander freely, you don’t understand that there are dogs about, I can barely keep them on the leash.

    Follow me, I will lead you to a safe space, the promised land.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *