GOP Proposal to Punish Fact Checkers.

[Moksha]

I suspect Republicans would prefer that their steady stream of lies not be identified as lies. That way they could ensnare more dupes.

[Dr Exiled]

This statement is fine as long as the evidence these heros use to guide us to nirvana is available to fact check ourselves.

Ignoring the sneering stuff (which is usually a sign that the poster has run out of convincing arguments or evidence), I'd agree with that.

Fact checking on a professional journalism basis is never a matter of saying "X is lying, Trust me on this, I'm a fact checker.". Good fact checkers will always make it clear on what evidential basis they make their evaluations.

If they don't, ignore what they say, since it is worth no more than when Trump gives us his "It's fake news folks!" dismissals.

Why have an office of fact checker if not to push the narrative in the direction of the fact checkers that are controlled by their billionaire masters? A lot of people use these so called fact checkers as authoritative sources, bludgeoning dissent, putting a layer between the narrative being pushed and the actual facts and evidence. Some don't bother going any further and follow this invented authority as if it is gospel truth. (If you can get people to follow a narrative as if it is religion, then you have something and having a priest class of fact checkers aids that greatly) To make matters worse, Facebook and Twitter use "fact checkers" hired by themselves of course, to excuse their shutting down speech that they don't want out there. We don't need net nannies keeping us away from anti-whatever narrative speech.

And it isn't either or as in follow the fact checkers or you are in Trump's camp. This is another narrative that needs to go.

[Chap]

I think you are now simply repeating yourself; I have already made quite plain why I think that professional fact checker journalists play an important role in preventing politicians of any political tendency from lying without being called out, and that the work of even the best fact checkers needs to be used critically.

You evidently disagree. It is time to let our readers judge which of us has the more reasonable position.

[Mayan Elephant]

I am fine with fact-checkers as long as their income (including wages, healthcare, housing, etc.) is dependent on the outcome of their rating. I would rather have them rate facts with loyalty to employers who are trickling income down to the peasants than have fact-checkers who waste energy looking at details that do not support the overall well-being of either their employer or the employer's employer. Especially, and perhaps most importantly, if that energy could otherwise be used to mine for crypto.

[Chap]

That's a parody, right MA?

God, I really hope so. Nowadays it is getting harder and harder to tell.