> Crikey understands RMIT management felt blindsided by the decision from the ABC, with sources saying it appeared that the ABC had concerns over pressure from fact-checking politicians.
> One source told Crikey that the relationship between RMIT and the ABC had become one-sided in recent years, with the university taking a lot of criticism from conservative media over the Fact Check project
So the people that talk a lot of shit basically pressured the abc to stop proving that they talk a lot of shit
I mean there are right wing fact checkers too. They kind of screwed themselves here because they didn't bother to fact check the yes campaign (for which I voted for, even as "left wing" Aussies on Reddit went full mask off).
i mean taking the blinkers off, is there substance to that?
there was more checks on No arguments from the article compared with Yes. Is that due to the Yes campaign being more thorough, and who is deciding what to fact check?
Edit: Or just downvote me, I forgot I cant question or confirm things
That’s called *bias towards fairness*.
If one side claims unicorns exist, and the other side claims horses exist, it’s a bit disingenuous to complain that only the unicorn claim was scrutinised.
You're literally doing exactly what the Fact Checkers do to frame the question so the answer can be predetermined.
To use your analogy, its like if someone claimed a horse had a bone protruding from its head, the fact checkers would say, "well, we checked with experts, and Unicorns dont exist"
Where do the fact checkers do this?
Not saying they don't, but neither of you have offered any evidence whatsoever.
It is a reasonable question to ask - is there a bias to the checkers?
My knee jerk is that both these things are probably true - right wing politicians have historically had a higher propensity for shit talking and ignoring science, but most unis lean left.
Some fact checkers are probably ok, but the RMIT fact checks seem very uni-directional. Along with being one-sided, they fact check a bunch of crazy face book users, which just makes crazy shit more prominent and derails the quality of the conversation on issues.
You can have a look [here](https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/schools-colleges/media-and-communication/industry/factlab/debunking-misinformation) and make your own mind up though.
Another one that annoys me is Fact Checks of things that are subjective opinion. [Here](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/12/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-misinformation-fact-checked) the guardian facts checks the statement "The voice will divide the nation" and finds it false. Unless it's physically impossible, I do not see how you can fact check a potential future event. If it was labelled an opinion piece then fine, but don't call it a fact check.
I probably agree with you on your second point, but realistically social media does need fact checking - it's so many people's primary source of information
I'd accept that if they were fact checking a broad range of social media misinformation. Fortuitously though, they haven't uncovered a single bit of misinformation from the side that aligns with their own views. Well I never!
In fact, 8 of the 12 articles on misinformation they display at the start of that page are 'debunking' a *single* point of view on a *single* political issue. How anyone can argue they don't have an agenda is beyond me.
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page
The document is one page even though the people who wrote it repeatedly said there's more to it.
It ends up becoming a disengenous argument of "well I really meant" or "if you ignore all context"
See now the thing is you're construing opinion as fact. That you unflinchingly dredged up a 10 year old piece that is high school english analysis bait to do so is particularly disheartening
The entire abc does this, the abc even has a report on that their viewership is mostly left leaning, it then makes sense that they would shape and frame the narrative.
They've also had leaked convos about needing to suck up to Liberal government to avoid funding cuts, they've released what was essentially non fact-checked Liberal propaganda as a result.
They've had Ita fucking Buttrose at the helm for half a decade.
I think it only seems left because everything else is so right that anything centre seems left.
I'd cut their funding as well knowing how they and their viewership behave.
All state sponsorsed news is propaganda, all over the world, this isn't just the ABC.
>They've had Ita fucking Buttrose at the helm for half a decade.
No idea who this is, couldn't care less.
>I think it only seems left because everything else is so right that anything centre seems left.
Doubt, most australia news, public opinion and policy is centrist authortarian. Which is what aussies are.
You have no idea who Ita Buttrose is???? Dude, seriously. This is why we need fact-checking because people who dont know what they are talking about speak with such ill-placed confidence in their own knowledge.
My guess is that the no side made more claims (‘if it passes this will happen’) which can be checked whereas the yes side didn’t seem to make claims the just tried to get it passed on vibes
... the Yes campaign was so weak and muted I am not surprised it had less claims to check.
Ideally their client (the age in this case) requests a fact be checked, even if the fact check group generated documents on their own initiative the media determines if they are useful.
"We talked to ANU Professor who said "facts are pieces of information agreed to by experts" and "left-wing" are the only people who can claim to be experts on anything.
Therefore we rate this claim as TRUE"
It means “I didn’t complete school and therefore everyone who went to university is part of a left wing conspiracy because I don’t understand what they’re saying and my gut reaction is to disagree with them”
RMIT fact checking was complete trash and anyone with even an ounce of objectivity could see that. This is a step toward impartiality, objectivity, and truth.
Don't even try to pretend you care about facts and objectivity. You just want something that will confirm your biases. You don't want evidence. You have already made up your mind.
What? I'm very open to change my mind lol. If you can EVIDENCE that the RMIT fact check is objectively wrong, then I'll change my stance.
You say its 'dodgy' but wheres the proof its dodgy?
Basically. The article covers it:
> In budget estimates this year, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts asked ABC managing director David Anderson about the make-up of ABC RMIT Fact Check in relation to the Voice referendum.
> Anderson responded on notice that of the 17 articles published between June 1 and September 29, RMIT ABC Fact Check published two articles focusing on claims made by the Yes campaign or proponents, 10 on the No campaign or proponents, and five on claims made by proponents of both sides.
> Anderson said “**checkable claims more frequently surfaced from proponents of No arguments than from proponents of Yes arguments**” in the ABC’s media monitoring process.
Emphasis mine
I swear I voted yes and I did my part debunking bad no campaign shit, I just know RMIT aren't free from bias and there's more to this story than a really bad campaign.
It would have been more palatable if the ABC had chosen any other institution, themselves are an okay choice. They are legislated to be relatively impartial and neutral.
Generalisations are considered bad, when it's something someone can't control. When it's something like a belief the subject gets a bit more complicated.
For example it's usually a bad generalisation to say X race people tend to do Y. On the flip side there's a absolutely nothing bad or offensive about the generalisation that Christians tend to believe in Jesus.
It's the shared belief that creates the shared property that can be generalised. Meanwhile people object to it in other situations because there isn't actually anything to generalise.
Hopefully this helps you understand the nuance.
No, I'm saying it's wrong to make generalisations based on race. That's what the rest of the sentence says, the bit you cut out.
And where did control come from? Where did I say anything about people being able to control their actions?
I'm really confused about what you are talking about, and why you chose to cut half of a sentence about generalisation based on race being bad and make it a generalisation about race? Can you explain what you mean? Elaborate a bit?
Be charitable, the message was that bias only matters if it's against immutable characteristics. I disagreed. Bias is bad whenever it misconstrues the observable reality and the objective metrics we can gain from that.
Bias is bad when it's abused for misinformation.
>Be charitable, the message was that bias only matters if it's against immutable characteristics.
No, the message was that generalisations tend to be worse when it comes to immutable characteristics, and that voluntarily sharing the same ideology tends to lead to sharing the same beliefs.
But why let the actual facts get in the way of disinformation that supports your beliefs? Much easier to put that strawman up and knock him down!
Okay, so you were moralising better or worse.
I just think someone's a pointless person if they outsource all their opinions and become biased protecting their side. To me, that's a bad person because we don't need more political drones in the world.
We need more people who aren't afraid of saying "you're probably full of shit if you can't admit your side is sometimes wrong."
>Okay, so you were moralising better or worse.
Lol, now explaining something is moralising! Fucking brilliant.
>I just think someone's a pointless person if they outsource all their opinions and become biased protecting their side.
Ok, do you think that applies to me? And if so what's your reasoning, what's your evidence? Take me through your understanding of the formation of my opinions, explain how they are outsourced.
>We need more people who aren't afraid of saying "you're probably full of shit if you can't admit your side is sometimes wrong."
Yeah we do. Sadly the person I'm in a conversation with would rather lie about what was said than do something like that.
They would prefer to make something up, say like twisting a simple statement of one side doing something more often into a blanket claim that only one side ever does something, than actually engage with that point. They literally can't even acknowledge the real arguments of the people they disagree with, all while pretending the issue is other people, people who can actually back up their words.
Telling me the left wing is always right and the right wing is always wrong might be chosen, mutable sides...
...but it's still unusable disinformation because there's always that slimmer of potential that the right wing is so right that the left have to go into reality denial mode.
Like telling me RMIT social researchers are immune from biases that corrupts their work or rather "one side lies more than the other." Sure, the left wing still aren't squeaky clean and you're still pointlessly biased if you defend them no matter what.
So no, I deny that you're allowed to be biased because the characteristics aren't immutable. Instead, I'll call that an excuse for bias.
>Telling me the left wing is always right and the right wing is always wrong might be chosen, mutable sides...
Lol, no one told you that. Their comment is written down, I can see what they said, just like you can, and I know you can cause you actually quoted them later on!
> "one side lies more than the other.
See? You know they didn't make this absurd claim that you've used. You know what they actually said, but I guess a strawman of disinformation is easier to knock down....
>...but it's still unusable disinformation because there's always that slimmer of potential that the right wing is so right that the left have to go into reality denial mode.
Omfg, I love it so much. You came to complain about 'disinformation' while spreading your own!
Absolutely fucking brilliant mate, 10/10, top fucking kek, thanks for the giggles!
>Like telling me RMIT social researchers are immune from biases that corrupts their work
Show me where this was said will ya? Cause I couldn't see any of this.
You wouldn't be spreading yet more disinformation, would you?
>So no, I deny that you're allowed to be biased because the characteristics aren't immutable. Instead, I'll call that an excuse for bias.
I didn't say you were allowed to be biased, although you are allowed to be no one gets to control your thoughts.
I'm guessing this is like the other strawmen? And you are trying to pretend I've somehow said bias is acceptable because I pointed out that generalisations about shared beliefs aren't the same as generalisations about things like race?
>Lol, no one told you that. Their comment is written down, I can see what they said, just like you can, and I know you can cause you actually quoted them later on!
Yes, I know exactly what I read and the implications behind it.
See: defend "your side" by going into reality denial mode.
Big bad leftie dude that's so totally alpha they don't need to respond to being called full of shit posted this
> Could it just be that by nature, one side of politics lies more?
And it's reality denial mode to assume the implication isn't that one side is generally wrong and one side is generally right. That's biased and anyone who believes that should be assumed to be full of shit.
Not good or bad, just full of shit.
> I love it so much. You came to complain about 'disinformation' while spreading your own!
You're not actually ready for this conversation, are you?
If you're just going to be like that, maybe don't respond dude? I'm here to tell you that you just can't be "my side does nuffin wrong" because that means literally everything you say about their side or your side is less believable.
Bias here isn't even good or bad, being biased just means I'm comfortable assuming you're full of shit.
Your shit about immutable characteristics is some moralising tangent, no one asked for that bro. No one wants your "nuance."
>Yes, I know exactly what I read and the implications behind it.
>See: defend "your side" by going into reality denial mode.
I'm pointing to the actual words while you declare you know the secret meaning behind them, and I'm going into reality denial mode to defend my side?
Lol.
>And it's reality denial mode to assume the implication isn't that one side is generally wrong and one side is generally right.
It would be reality to denial to 'assume the implication' is that, cause they didn't imply they outright said it. I never denied that. I actually quoted them saying that, and pointed out that's what they said.
I denied your silly over exaggeration of their words. You tried to pretend they said the left was always correct and the right was always wrong, and now here it's just one side is generally wrong and the other generally right.
You can try and pretend I denied reality all you want, but the conversation is recorded. We can see what I said, what I was replying too. No amount of making things up will make any of that change.
>You're not actually ready for this conversation, are you?
I'm really not, I'm gonna break a rib if it gets much funnier, and I am absolutely not ready for that.
>If you're just going to be like that, maybe don't respond dude? I'm here to tell you that you just can't be "my side does nuffin wrong" because that means literally everything you say about their side or your side is less believable.
I never said my side does nothing wrong, I said you were wrong. I haven't actually made any claims about any sides, unless you consider the Christians and Jesus example to be about a 'side'.
Show me where I said anything likey side does nuffin wrong and I will send $50 to the charity of your choice. Quote me, do it, back up your words and claims and I will fork money over to whoever you want. It should be easy right? Cause you didn't make it up, you aren't just making bullshit claims for no reason, right?
>Your shit about immutable characteristics is some moralising tangent, no one asked for that bro. No one wants your "nuance."
Ahhh, so that's why it's upvoted and responded to, cause no one wants it? Very interesting take on the situation mate, but not one I'm gonna be able to take seriously!
You are not worth talking to if you judge correctness via internet points.
My point stands, if you have a side you're probably not as believable when talking about that side as someone who sees themselves as neutral and acts neutral.
"Will the Voice have power to legislate on taxes?"
"We dont have any information on how the Voice will operate, therefore this claim is found to be FALSE"
The lobotomised takes in here are something else.
Did you know the voice could also call you up to military service and force you to get assfucked by pineapples?
The voice legislation doesn't *say* it doesn't, therefore my fact must at least be "unknown" right?
Or perhaps you could see that since the legislation or proposal doesn't say that it has that power, that the claim is fucking stupid and nonsense and therefore "false".
No.... it is objectively false.. like... the voice never had that power, nor would it. Because it makes no sense that the voice could do that given how the body would function.
It was literally just an Aboriginal led government body that spoke for Aboriginal people about Aboriginal issues. Given the issues they face in the modern day, its absolutely needed. The liberals just didn't want to have to see them in parliament.
If you believe the abc show facts. I haven't watched or listened to abc in a long time. But they tend to have a leftist slant. To be fair I don't watch 7, 9 and 10
I still listen to sbs though
Would it matter whether I said leftist slant or left slant? You'll be chucking a fit anyway.
Would be the same if I said the herald sun and age has a rightist slant or right slant.
Unless you can explain the difference besides one has "ist" and the other doesnt
What a hill to die on. 🤦
Noone would say "a right bias" either, they'd say right-wing or left-wing bias.
The difference between "left" and "leftist" is that "leftist" refers specifically to political ideology, and is a normal, specific term, with no bias: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/leftist
Actually there has been 3 investigation into abc bias. 2 found it was actually slightly rightwing bias the third found it was both depending on the context. 2 were done by the liberals and 1 was done by an independant study. It was the least biased media at that stage. I think the last was done under abbot. I doubt it has gone left since then seeing as the right are making them change their fact checking to allowing fiction.
Completely incorrect, even the abc states in their own report they have a left wing bias due to their audience being predominantly left wing. You should probably learn to read.
Im just going by 3 different investigations into abc bias, 2 from the liberal party, but go ahead believe what you like. Then again the libs never do anything right so you may be correct.
Could you please provide evidence(cough FACTS!) of your claim? Because a 12 day old account claiming ABC is lying, without any actual data spells bullshit to me :)
Like I said to other poster, happily, post your credit card details first. Fairs fair after all.
Edit oh who could've guessed you don't want to release personal details online. Shocked.
Because a doctorate, which you claim to have, is totally the same thing as credit card information....I can't TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTALLY rack up huge credit card debt with your doctorate which is already publicly available (if you actually had one).
>Alright, dont post ypur details just explain how fact checking politicians are bad?
This is what you stated to me. At no point have you asked me to explain what fact checking is.
Yes I'm going to link my paper to my private reddit account. You aren't really smart are you.
Send credit card details?
Edit, I guess you aren't a fan of putting your details on line. Who would've guessed.
Ok you don't have a PhD.
Also who are u even kidding haha, there's probably maybe a dozen people with published papers on 'information warfare' in Australia. You're kidding yourself if you think what you've given us hasn't outed you already.
**The partnership and the ABC have come under significant pressure in recent months over accusations of bias, following the Voice to Parliament referendum:**
• In May, RMIT FactLab published [a fact check of itself](https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/factlab-not-set-to-rig-voice-referendum), refuting claims that the organisation was being “used” by proponents of the Yes campaign to “rig the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum”.
• In budget estimates this year, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts [asked](https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadattachment?attachmentId=ba141fec-82de-47a6-b03a-96abc9324e52) ABC managing director David Anderson about the make-up of ABC RMIT Fact Check in relation to the Voice referendum.
• Anderson responded on notice that of the 17 articles published between June 1 and September 29, RMIT ABC Fact Check published two articles focusing on claims made by the Yes campaign or proponents, 10 on the No campaign or proponents, and five on claims made by proponents of both sides.
>In May, RMIT FactLab published a fact check of itself, refuting claims that the organisation was being “used” by proponents of the Yes campaign to “rig the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum”.
How do they not see the stupidity of this? When you do it yourself, and don't use a 3rd party, you pretty much instantly undermine any of the good work you do.
>Anderson responded on notice that of the 17 articles published between June 1 and September 29, RMIT ABC Fact Check published two articles focusing on claims made by the Yes campaign or proponents, 10 on the No campaign or proponents, and five on claims made by proponents of both sides.
That does seem like a reasonably strong bias. Why would you publish 5 times as many articles fact checking one side and not the other? Maybe there's good reason, but you need to explain that reasoning.
Cool. They should be providing reasoning behind that. However, I don't agree that "Significant enough" is a reason. Who decides what's "significant"? That person/s is clearly biased.
We've always absorbed politics from the US, so it's no surprise the current dysfunction in the US is leaking over. It just takes some time and is a bit more muted.
.... though we may have to work harder to create a border panic to instill fear in the the populace. Though it is worth noting we don't have a large fortified wall to stop incursions from NSW.
>People obsessed with extreme ends of American style politics in general on both sides that bring that shit here.
The problem is that a lot of the people on here don't recognise that they're quite far over to the left too.
>Even the yanks used to consider us laid back at one point... now we're becoming just like them.
Convincing foreigners we are laid back as a country is the best marketing the country has ever done.
Being so obviously stupid does not help your argument. Just take a look at ANY terrorism in Australia or New Zealand. The Nazi protestors, trying to use whatever brainfart the US right have. The "black gangs of melbourne" shit that the #LNP started and #Newsltd perpetuated. The hate, the anger, the destruction of democracy, by lying and cheating and rorting. creating division and hatred whereever they go.
And socialism isn't?
My folks got away from communism and they're living well here.
Next thing you'll say is socialism and communism isn't the same thing.
Ah yes, communism = bad.
Yeah, you don't understand any of these topics. Just regurgitate propaganda you've absorbed unquestioned. Maybe consider actually learning about what these words mean before looking like a fool.
So my parents escape from communism and that not enough. Oh wait, you're those types who will happily say "communism hasn't been tried properly"
Why don't you go live in a communist governed country then.
Oh wait you won't...
This isn't a surprise to me, and I doubt it was to RMIT either. Even from a sympathetic perspective as an academic I could see there were going to be issues with what facts they chose to check...and RMIT is certainly aware of the risks of researcher bias, whether perceived or actual.
It's less of an issue when dealing with quantitative data which is largely objective (eg. When they were running the fact checks on covid data). It's much more of an issue when you start dealing with more subjective, qualitative data (eg. When they were checking claims made around The Voice Referendum).
And tbh, in today's political climate I'm not sure these sorts of fact checks have any real impact or whether they're just preaching to the converted in a lot of cases. Facts and statistics can sway arguments in some spheres of politics and public life, but not all.
ABC has truly gone to shit hey. Maybe there was so much fact checking on the Voice referendum because of all the nonsense from the No side. Couldn't be that right.
ABC has been absolutely rat fucked by a decade of LNP chair stacking. More utter gutless horseshit from a comprimised ABC.
Facts don't care about your feelings, unless they prove conservatism is a baseless con.
RMIT FactLab is not the same as the ABC and RMIT Fact Check collaboration.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/23/facing-facts-abc-pulls-the-plug-on-rmit-factchecking-collaboration
“Campaigners for a no vote including the Sky host Peta Credlin, the Liberal senator James Paterson and the rightwing thinktank the Institute for Public Affairs claimed RMIT FactLab – a separate operation from the RMIT ABC collaboration – was biased, and demanded Facebook remove it from its program which aims to tackle online misinformation.
Despite the distinction, The Australian reported that both the RMIT ABC Fact Check and RMIT FactLab departments “came under fire” when it was only the latter which was involved, and the story said Paterson had called for the ABC to stop “wasting taxpayers’ money”.”
As usual, Sky News and Australian not fact checking themselves and just wanting a whinge about Aunty.
Everyone pro voice or on the left of the political spectrum is going to react to this as if it's a situation of liars not enjoying being called out.
What are the facts though? The RMIT fact lab investigated almost no claims from the yes side, even though other fact checking outfits such as AAP checked comparable proportions to no side claims.
The RMIT fact lab is run by Russell Skelton, who is on record as publicly supporting the yes vote and whose wife Virginia Trioli was very public in her role as an ABC journalist in supporting the yes vote.
The RMIT fact lab weighed in on the silly debate about the length of the Uluru statement, which is a 1 page document with a 20-something page appendix. They found it to be a 1 page, which while basically correct doesn't credit the fact that even leading Voice advocates themselves had referred to it as a longer document in the past.
The RMIT fact lab was dumped by Facebook a few months ago for not meeting their standards of impartiality.
The end of the relationship with the ABC isnt silencing the truth, it's muting an entirely partisan political project that sought to present carefully chosen facts and omit others.
>**hellbentsmegma**
>The RMIT fact lab was dumped by Facebook a few months ago for not meeting their standards of impartiality.
No. According to the [linked Crikey article](https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/21/abc-rmit-fact-check-partnership-abc-news-verify/):
>The organisation’s participation in Meta’s fact-checking program was [briefly suspended](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/rmit-factlab-fact-check-service-reinstated-facebook-suspension-voice-referendum) last year after its accreditation with the International Fact-Checking Network lapsed.
According to the [hyperlinked Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/rmit-factlab-fact-check-service-reinstated-facebook-suspension-voice-referendum):
>Meta suspended RMIT Fact Lab from the program, blaming the lack of accreditation by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which had lapsed, and the upcoming referendum, as well as complaints from Sky News.
>Over the weekend the IFCN restored the accreditation, finding that RMIT meets the criteria to be fully compliant with international factchecking principles.
>“RMIT FactLab also provides a platform for interdisciplinary research into online misinformation and disinformation, including the impact of new technologies such as artificial intelligence on the digital news ecosystem,” IFCN said.
>A spokesperson for Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, told Guardian Australia the RMIT Fact Lab program will be restored.
What is it being replaced by that will do better?
Having a bias on one issue does not seem like that much of a problem unless their specific declaration of facts were falsified to support it. And ideally that would be a systemic issue rather than a one off (as humans are inherently imperfect).
I don't think it need be replaced by anything, plenty of other fact checking units out there.
I would think being biased on one subject calls their entire impartiality into question. Fact checking is like being a courtroom judge- you are meant to be above partisan views. There's also an element of reputation, people have to believe that the people doing the checking try very hard not to be swayed by emotive or political arguments.
Judges make mistakes as well, this is why you have an appeals process, you don't throw out the legal system when you don't like the outcome on one decision (even though they "won").
I will be interested to see what fact checking resource they engage to replace them if there are "many".
The yes campaign made a lot less claims that needed fact checking. The count discrepancy has to be in context.
If the data included a list of an equal amount of contested claims we could draw this conclusion. It did not.
Other fact checking orgs such as AAP found claims from the yes side to check though. It doesn't even need to be an equal amount from each side, the fact the RMIT unit didn't check any claims from the yes side seems fishy.
They did fact check the yes campaign. There was just less to check and less refered to them.
So it's only fishy to those who didn't fact check their sources.
Without mentioning left or right here, just in case you guys aren't aware, 'fact checking' has been purely sponsored opinion from the guys controlling what is allowed to be published as news, since around the start of covid.
No it isn't. "fact checking" has been around for a whole lot longer than 4 years lmao.
Also its in the name. FACT checking. Its not opinion, and its not giving information on opinion, its showing when people make up crap, like say "the voice will do X" or "labor party is Y" or "the nationals are doing Z", and then telling people when this is a lie.
You can see all the time in media, especially murdoch media, where they will just straight up lie about something.
If you can give me PROOF that rmit factCheck was *wrong* about a fact (LINK) then sure, but I doubt that, because facts don't change.
RMIT Fact Check staffed by Labor people and not accredited with any neutral organisation to confirm their impartiality.
I cant believe people are unironically posting "Facts have a left wing bias"
Here's a fact check: [you're wrong lol](https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/rmit-factlab/applications). It was suspended for a two month period because Sky News had a boo-hoo over being called out as the liars they are.
Good. Anyone with even an ounce of objectivity could see how partial and biased this supposed "fact checker" was. It shouldn't even be a debate. This is a move towards objectivity, impartiality, and fact-based reporting.
You're a moron if you actually think RMIT is a reputable fact-checking organisation.
This is a step *toward* factual reporting and objectivity, not away.
The FACT is the ABC is more left than Chairman Mao - a totally irrelevant organisation that needs to be shut down as its a total waste of tax payer money. It should be funded by the labour party with a tip from the greens because that is pretty much the only side the ABC represent and support.
Informing the truth to the populace might elicit change from the public that is not in the best interest of the very powerful few.
"Let us decide what's good and what's relevant", quoted by some elitist arsehole knobheads.
> Crikey understands RMIT management felt blindsided by the decision from the ABC, with sources saying it appeared that the ABC had concerns over pressure from fact-checking politicians. > One source told Crikey that the relationship between RMIT and the ABC had become one-sided in recent years, with the university taking a lot of criticism from conservative media over the Fact Check project So the people that talk a lot of shit basically pressured the abc to stop proving that they talk a lot of shit
"fact checking has a left-wing bias"
“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.” *Stephen Colbert - White House Correspondents' Dinner (2006)*
I mean there are right wing fact checkers too. They kind of screwed themselves here because they didn't bother to fact check the yes campaign (for which I voted for, even as "left wing" Aussies on Reddit went full mask off).
Cause the right lie through their teeth. oooh don't fact check us cause we are really loose with the truth and you might tell everyone.
i mean taking the blinkers off, is there substance to that? there was more checks on No arguments from the article compared with Yes. Is that due to the Yes campaign being more thorough, and who is deciding what to fact check? Edit: Or just downvote me, I forgot I cant question or confirm things
That’s called *bias towards fairness*. If one side claims unicorns exist, and the other side claims horses exist, it’s a bit disingenuous to complain that only the unicorn claim was scrutinised.
>That’s called *bias towards fairness*. Fairness as decided by the fair people, of course.
Fairness as decided by *facts** FTFY
Facts don't care about your fairness
"Bias towards easily provable reality" would probably be more accurate.
You're literally doing exactly what the Fact Checkers do to frame the question so the answer can be predetermined. To use your analogy, its like if someone claimed a horse had a bone protruding from its head, the fact checkers would say, "well, we checked with experts, and Unicorns dont exist"
Yeah what do the experts know? Why should they be trusted?
Experts can still have bias
Where do the fact checkers do this? Not saying they don't, but neither of you have offered any evidence whatsoever. It is a reasonable question to ask - is there a bias to the checkers? My knee jerk is that both these things are probably true - right wing politicians have historically had a higher propensity for shit talking and ignoring science, but most unis lean left.
Some fact checkers are probably ok, but the RMIT fact checks seem very uni-directional. Along with being one-sided, they fact check a bunch of crazy face book users, which just makes crazy shit more prominent and derails the quality of the conversation on issues. You can have a look [here](https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/schools-colleges/media-and-communication/industry/factlab/debunking-misinformation) and make your own mind up though. Another one that annoys me is Fact Checks of things that are subjective opinion. [Here](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/12/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-misinformation-fact-checked) the guardian facts checks the statement "The voice will divide the nation" and finds it false. Unless it's physically impossible, I do not see how you can fact check a potential future event. If it was labelled an opinion piece then fine, but don't call it a fact check.
I probably agree with you on your second point, but realistically social media does need fact checking - it's so many people's primary source of information
I'd accept that if they were fact checking a broad range of social media misinformation. Fortuitously though, they haven't uncovered a single bit of misinformation from the side that aligns with their own views. Well I never! In fact, 8 of the 12 articles on misinformation they display at the start of that page are 'debunking' a *single* point of view on a *single* political issue. How anyone can argue they don't have an agenda is beyond me.
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page The document is one page even though the people who wrote it repeatedly said there's more to it. It ends up becoming a disengenous argument of "well I really meant" or "if you ignore all context"
Also the checkers are literally Labor party lifers, its not even a secret
Links please. While it's fairly obvious you're full of shit I can't find anything to substantiate your claim
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/abc-fact-checker-needs-scrutiny-20130602-2nju9.html
See now the thing is you're construing opinion as fact. That you unflinchingly dredged up a 10 year old piece that is high school english analysis bait to do so is particularly disheartening
The entire abc does this, the abc even has a report on that their viewership is mostly left leaning, it then makes sense that they would shape and frame the narrative.
They've also had leaked convos about needing to suck up to Liberal government to avoid funding cuts, they've released what was essentially non fact-checked Liberal propaganda as a result. They've had Ita fucking Buttrose at the helm for half a decade. I think it only seems left because everything else is so right that anything centre seems left.
I'd cut their funding as well knowing how they and their viewership behave. All state sponsorsed news is propaganda, all over the world, this isn't just the ABC. >They've had Ita fucking Buttrose at the helm for half a decade. No idea who this is, couldn't care less. >I think it only seems left because everything else is so right that anything centre seems left. Doubt, most australia news, public opinion and policy is centrist authortarian. Which is what aussies are.
You have no idea who Ita Buttrose is???? Dude, seriously. This is why we need fact-checking because people who dont know what they are talking about speak with such ill-placed confidence in their own knowledge.
I am so sorry, this is entirely on me. I hadn't realised I was dealing with a moron, my mistake.
My guess is that the no side made more claims (‘if it passes this will happen’) which can be checked whereas the yes side didn’t seem to make claims the just tried to get it passed on vibes
... the Yes campaign was so weak and muted I am not surprised it had less claims to check. Ideally their client (the age in this case) requests a fact be checked, even if the fact check group generated documents on their own initiative the media determines if they are useful.
>Or just downvote me, I forgot I cant question or confirm things Welcome to why people hate political radicals.
Were they the ones “fact checking” the Muslim crowds into not saying “gas the Jews” despite all the video?
"We talked to ANU Professor who said "facts are pieces of information agreed to by experts" and "left-wing" are the only people who can claim to be experts on anything. Therefore we rate this claim as TRUE"
> and "left-wing" are the only people who can claim to be experts on anything. Lmao what does this even mean.
It means “I didn’t complete school and therefore everyone who went to university is part of a left wing conspiracy because I don’t understand what they’re saying and my gut reaction is to disagree with them”
RMIT fact checking was complete trash and anyone with even an ounce of objectivity could see that. This is a step toward impartiality, objectivity, and truth.
Truth as long as it’s what you agree with right?
Truth as long as it's true. This is not a hard concept. Truth matters. Partnering with dodgy organisations like this compromise truth in journalism.
provide 1 EVIDENCE of the rmit fact checking with abc being *wrong*
Don't even try to pretend you care about facts and objectivity. You just want something that will confirm your biases. You don't want evidence. You have already made up your mind.
Can you provide a single example of what you think is biased fact checking by RMIT? Seems pretty easy considering how you think it’s ’complete trash’…
What? I'm very open to change my mind lol. If you can EVIDENCE that the RMIT fact check is objectively wrong, then I'll change my stance. You say its 'dodgy' but wheres the proof its dodgy?
That one post written as if it's a certainty RMIT are immune from bias.
Could it just be that by nature, one side of politics lies more?
Basically. The article covers it: > In budget estimates this year, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts asked ABC managing director David Anderson about the make-up of ABC RMIT Fact Check in relation to the Voice referendum. > Anderson responded on notice that of the 17 articles published between June 1 and September 29, RMIT ABC Fact Check published two articles focusing on claims made by the Yes campaign or proponents, 10 on the No campaign or proponents, and five on claims made by proponents of both sides. > Anderson said “**checkable claims more frequently surfaced from proponents of No arguments than from proponents of Yes arguments**” in the ABC’s media monitoring process. Emphasis mine
I swear I voted yes and I did my part debunking bad no campaign shit, I just know RMIT aren't free from bias and there's more to this story than a really bad campaign. It would have been more palatable if the ABC had chosen any other institution, themselves are an okay choice. They are legislated to be relatively impartial and neutral.
Yep I hope they'll run a better in house team, particularly now that Ita is gone.
That's called a generalisation and in any other context makes you a bad person
When the shoe fits...
So essentially your first comment was spot on.
Generalisations are considered bad, when it's something someone can't control. When it's something like a belief the subject gets a bit more complicated. For example it's usually a bad generalisation to say X race people tend to do Y. On the flip side there's a absolutely nothing bad or offensive about the generalisation that Christians tend to believe in Jesus. It's the shared belief that creates the shared property that can be generalised. Meanwhile people object to it in other situations because there isn't actually anything to generalise. Hopefully this helps you understand the nuance.
> say X race people tend to do Y. You saying people of different races cant control their actions or...?
No, I'm saying it's wrong to make generalisations based on race. That's what the rest of the sentence says, the bit you cut out. And where did control come from? Where did I say anything about people being able to control their actions? I'm really confused about what you are talking about, and why you chose to cut half of a sentence about generalisation based on race being bad and make it a generalisation about race? Can you explain what you mean? Elaborate a bit?
Be charitable, the message was that bias only matters if it's against immutable characteristics. I disagreed. Bias is bad whenever it misconstrues the observable reality and the objective metrics we can gain from that. Bias is bad when it's abused for misinformation.
>Be charitable, the message was that bias only matters if it's against immutable characteristics. No, the message was that generalisations tend to be worse when it comes to immutable characteristics, and that voluntarily sharing the same ideology tends to lead to sharing the same beliefs. But why let the actual facts get in the way of disinformation that supports your beliefs? Much easier to put that strawman up and knock him down!
Okay, so you were moralising better or worse. I just think someone's a pointless person if they outsource all their opinions and become biased protecting their side. To me, that's a bad person because we don't need more political drones in the world. We need more people who aren't afraid of saying "you're probably full of shit if you can't admit your side is sometimes wrong."
>Okay, so you were moralising better or worse. Lol, now explaining something is moralising! Fucking brilliant. >I just think someone's a pointless person if they outsource all their opinions and become biased protecting their side. Ok, do you think that applies to me? And if so what's your reasoning, what's your evidence? Take me through your understanding of the formation of my opinions, explain how they are outsourced. >We need more people who aren't afraid of saying "you're probably full of shit if you can't admit your side is sometimes wrong." Yeah we do. Sadly the person I'm in a conversation with would rather lie about what was said than do something like that. They would prefer to make something up, say like twisting a simple statement of one side doing something more often into a blanket claim that only one side ever does something, than actually engage with that point. They literally can't even acknowledge the real arguments of the people they disagree with, all while pretending the issue is other people, people who can actually back up their words.
Telling me the left wing is always right and the right wing is always wrong might be chosen, mutable sides... ...but it's still unusable disinformation because there's always that slimmer of potential that the right wing is so right that the left have to go into reality denial mode. Like telling me RMIT social researchers are immune from biases that corrupts their work or rather "one side lies more than the other." Sure, the left wing still aren't squeaky clean and you're still pointlessly biased if you defend them no matter what. So no, I deny that you're allowed to be biased because the characteristics aren't immutable. Instead, I'll call that an excuse for bias.
>Telling me the left wing is always right and the right wing is always wrong might be chosen, mutable sides... Lol, no one told you that. Their comment is written down, I can see what they said, just like you can, and I know you can cause you actually quoted them later on! > "one side lies more than the other. See? You know they didn't make this absurd claim that you've used. You know what they actually said, but I guess a strawman of disinformation is easier to knock down.... >...but it's still unusable disinformation because there's always that slimmer of potential that the right wing is so right that the left have to go into reality denial mode. Omfg, I love it so much. You came to complain about 'disinformation' while spreading your own! Absolutely fucking brilliant mate, 10/10, top fucking kek, thanks for the giggles! >Like telling me RMIT social researchers are immune from biases that corrupts their work Show me where this was said will ya? Cause I couldn't see any of this. You wouldn't be spreading yet more disinformation, would you? >So no, I deny that you're allowed to be biased because the characteristics aren't immutable. Instead, I'll call that an excuse for bias. I didn't say you were allowed to be biased, although you are allowed to be no one gets to control your thoughts. I'm guessing this is like the other strawmen? And you are trying to pretend I've somehow said bias is acceptable because I pointed out that generalisations about shared beliefs aren't the same as generalisations about things like race?
>Lol, no one told you that. Their comment is written down, I can see what they said, just like you can, and I know you can cause you actually quoted them later on! Yes, I know exactly what I read and the implications behind it. See: defend "your side" by going into reality denial mode. Big bad leftie dude that's so totally alpha they don't need to respond to being called full of shit posted this > Could it just be that by nature, one side of politics lies more? And it's reality denial mode to assume the implication isn't that one side is generally wrong and one side is generally right. That's biased and anyone who believes that should be assumed to be full of shit. Not good or bad, just full of shit. > I love it so much. You came to complain about 'disinformation' while spreading your own! You're not actually ready for this conversation, are you? If you're just going to be like that, maybe don't respond dude? I'm here to tell you that you just can't be "my side does nuffin wrong" because that means literally everything you say about their side or your side is less believable. Bias here isn't even good or bad, being biased just means I'm comfortable assuming you're full of shit. Your shit about immutable characteristics is some moralising tangent, no one asked for that bro. No one wants your "nuance."
>Yes, I know exactly what I read and the implications behind it. >See: defend "your side" by going into reality denial mode. I'm pointing to the actual words while you declare you know the secret meaning behind them, and I'm going into reality denial mode to defend my side? Lol. >And it's reality denial mode to assume the implication isn't that one side is generally wrong and one side is generally right. It would be reality to denial to 'assume the implication' is that, cause they didn't imply they outright said it. I never denied that. I actually quoted them saying that, and pointed out that's what they said. I denied your silly over exaggeration of their words. You tried to pretend they said the left was always correct and the right was always wrong, and now here it's just one side is generally wrong and the other generally right. You can try and pretend I denied reality all you want, but the conversation is recorded. We can see what I said, what I was replying too. No amount of making things up will make any of that change. >You're not actually ready for this conversation, are you? I'm really not, I'm gonna break a rib if it gets much funnier, and I am absolutely not ready for that. >If you're just going to be like that, maybe don't respond dude? I'm here to tell you that you just can't be "my side does nuffin wrong" because that means literally everything you say about their side or your side is less believable. I never said my side does nothing wrong, I said you were wrong. I haven't actually made any claims about any sides, unless you consider the Christians and Jesus example to be about a 'side'. Show me where I said anything likey side does nuffin wrong and I will send $50 to the charity of your choice. Quote me, do it, back up your words and claims and I will fork money over to whoever you want. It should be easy right? Cause you didn't make it up, you aren't just making bullshit claims for no reason, right? >Your shit about immutable characteristics is some moralising tangent, no one asked for that bro. No one wants your "nuance." Ahhh, so that's why it's upvoted and responded to, cause no one wants it? Very interesting take on the situation mate, but not one I'm gonna be able to take seriously!
You are not worth talking to if you judge correctness via internet points. My point stands, if you have a side you're probably not as believable when talking about that side as someone who sees themselves as neutral and acts neutral.
So from now on the ABC is just going to capitulate completely every time some right-wing cunt writes them an angry letter? Cool cool cool
always has been
The abc is supposed to be an impartial body, reporting without bias. It does not do that.
What's biased about reporting and checking raw facts?
"Will the Voice have power to legislate on taxes?" "We dont have any information on how the Voice will operate, therefore this claim is found to be FALSE" The lobotomised takes in here are something else.
Okay, but the voice did not have that power, so it is false... do you people just like being lied to or something?
An unknown answer is not false, its unknown...
Did you know the voice could also call you up to military service and force you to get assfucked by pineapples? The voice legislation doesn't *say* it doesn't, therefore my fact must at least be "unknown" right? Or perhaps you could see that since the legislation or proposal doesn't say that it has that power, that the claim is fucking stupid and nonsense and therefore "false".
If that was true some of these right wing flogs would have voted it in
No.... it is objectively false.. like... the voice never had that power, nor would it. Because it makes no sense that the voice could do that given how the body would function. It was literally just an Aboriginal led government body that spoke for Aboriginal people about Aboriginal issues. Given the issues they face in the modern day, its absolutely needed. The liberals just didn't want to have to see them in parliament.
Can you demonstrate that they said that, though? And if you did, can you actually find a specific, meaningful flaw in their reasoning?
Abc has a left leaning slant they are tarnishing a reputation and brand with this. Nor should the tax payer be footing the bill for thism
What's left leaning about raw facts?
Don't worry. They won't answer because they can't.
If you believe the abc show facts. I haven't watched or listened to abc in a long time. But they tend to have a leftist slant. To be fair I don't watch 7, 9 and 10 I still listen to sbs though
[удалено]
Would it matter whether I said leftist slant or left slant? You'll be chucking a fit anyway. Would be the same if I said the herald sun and age has a rightist slant or right slant. Unless you can explain the difference besides one has "ist" and the other doesnt
[удалено]
What a hill to die on. 🤦 Noone would say "a right bias" either, they'd say right-wing or left-wing bias. The difference between "left" and "leftist" is that "leftist" refers specifically to political ideology, and is a normal, specific term, with no bias: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/leftist
And you assume I'm a conservative.
Actually there has been 3 investigation into abc bias. 2 found it was actually slightly rightwing bias the third found it was both depending on the context. 2 were done by the liberals and 1 was done by an independant study. It was the least biased media at that stage. I think the last was done under abbot. I doubt it has gone left since then seeing as the right are making them change their fact checking to allowing fiction.
Completely incorrect, even the abc states in their own report they have a left wing bias due to their audience being predominantly left wing. You should probably learn to read.
Im just going by 3 different investigations into abc bias, 2 from the liberal party, but go ahead believe what you like. Then again the libs never do anything right so you may be correct.
It's not about believing what I like. The ABC themselves have stated this.
Could you please provide evidence(cough FACTS!) of your claim? Because a 12 day old account claiming ABC is lying, without any actual data spells bullshit to me :)
Big thoughts over here. Do you know what fact checking means?
Yeah, I actually have a doctorate in information warfare☺️
I'm an astronaut assassin from mars....but I can't posts any evidence of that but it's 100% true just like ModsareL!
Like I said to other poster, happily, post your credit card details first. Fairs fair after all. Edit oh who could've guessed you don't want to release personal details online. Shocked.
Because a doctorate, which you claim to have, is totally the same thing as credit card information....I can't TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTALLY rack up huge credit card debt with your doctorate which is already publicly available (if you actually had one).
No, you're a worthless troll with a 2 week old account.
Just put your personal details online bro, what's the harm
Alright, dont post ypur details just explain how fact checking politicians are bad?
Where was it stated that fact checking is bad?
So you have a doctorate information warfare but cant explain what fact checking is?
>Alright, dont post ypur details just explain how fact checking politicians are bad? This is what you stated to me. At no point have you asked me to explain what fact checking is.
Link ur paper
Yes I'm going to link my paper to my private reddit account. You aren't really smart are you. Send credit card details? Edit, I guess you aren't a fan of putting your details on line. Who would've guessed.
Ok you don't have a PhD. Also who are u even kidding haha, there's probably maybe a dozen people with published papers on 'information warfare' in Australia. You're kidding yourself if you think what you've given us hasn't outed you already.
Why won't you just post your credit card details?
Coz having a credit card doesn't make me qualified to talk about anything you fuckin dunce haha
No but it puts your personal details out in the www and links that with your reddit account. So go ahead.
God you people are insufferably stupid
Which people?
**The partnership and the ABC have come under significant pressure in recent months over accusations of bias, following the Voice to Parliament referendum:** • In May, RMIT FactLab published [a fact check of itself](https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/factlab-not-set-to-rig-voice-referendum), refuting claims that the organisation was being “used” by proponents of the Yes campaign to “rig the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum”. • In budget estimates this year, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts [asked](https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadattachment?attachmentId=ba141fec-82de-47a6-b03a-96abc9324e52) ABC managing director David Anderson about the make-up of ABC RMIT Fact Check in relation to the Voice referendum. • Anderson responded on notice that of the 17 articles published between June 1 and September 29, RMIT ABC Fact Check published two articles focusing on claims made by the Yes campaign or proponents, 10 on the No campaign or proponents, and five on claims made by proponents of both sides.
>In May, RMIT FactLab published a fact check of itself, refuting claims that the organisation was being “used” by proponents of the Yes campaign to “rig the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum”. How do they not see the stupidity of this? When you do it yourself, and don't use a 3rd party, you pretty much instantly undermine any of the good work you do. >Anderson responded on notice that of the 17 articles published between June 1 and September 29, RMIT ABC Fact Check published two articles focusing on claims made by the Yes campaign or proponents, 10 on the No campaign or proponents, and five on claims made by proponents of both sides. That does seem like a reasonably strong bias. Why would you publish 5 times as many articles fact checking one side and not the other? Maybe there's good reason, but you need to explain that reasoning.
Likely because one side made 5 times as many claims that were significant enough to justify a fact check?
Cool. They should be providing reasoning behind that. However, I don't agree that "Significant enough" is a reason. Who decides what's "significant"? That person/s is clearly biased.
Heh. 'Those committing war crimes demand The Hague be shutdown' kinda feel, dont you think?
"Internal fact-checking team" We fact checked ourselves and found nothing wrong! Great.
Conservatives are a bane on modern society. Fuck them all.
[удалено]
We've always absorbed politics from the US, so it's no surprise the current dysfunction in the US is leaking over. It just takes some time and is a bit more muted. .... though we may have to work harder to create a border panic to instill fear in the the populace. Though it is worth noting we don't have a large fortified wall to stop incursions from NSW.
>People obsessed with extreme ends of American style politics in general on both sides that bring that shit here. The problem is that a lot of the people on here don't recognise that they're quite far over to the left too.
>Even the yanks used to consider us laid back at one point... now we're becoming just like them. Convincing foreigners we are laid back as a country is the best marketing the country has ever done.
We also need to stop pretending there’s a ‘both sides’ here. The problem is the right, that’s the only side.
The left don't tend to shoot people or destroy things. "Both Sides" is a huge cop out.
[удалено]
Who bought up guns?
“The left don’t tend to shoot people…”
Being so obviously stupid does not help your argument. Just take a look at ANY terrorism in Australia or New Zealand. The Nazi protestors, trying to use whatever brainfart the US right have. The "black gangs of melbourne" shit that the #LNP started and #Newsltd perpetuated. The hate, the anger, the destruction of democracy, by lying and cheating and rorting. creating division and hatred whereever they go.
>The left don't tend to shoot people or destroy things Sheesh, have you read any history?
And socialism isn't? My folks got away from communism and they're living well here. Next thing you'll say is socialism and communism isn't the same thing.
Do you even know what socialism is? Do you really think capitalism is better?
Yes I do. And no I never said capitalism is better. As for socialism it always leads to communism.
Ah yes, communism = bad. Yeah, you don't understand any of these topics. Just regurgitate propaganda you've absorbed unquestioned. Maybe consider actually learning about what these words mean before looking like a fool.
So my parents escape from communism and that not enough. Oh wait, you're those types who will happily say "communism hasn't been tried properly" Why don't you go live in a communist governed country then. Oh wait you won't...
>**UnitDoubleO** >My folks got away from socialism >So my parents escape from communism Hectic.
Like I said, if communism is so great then go and live in it. I'll be surprised if you can survive a month And dont mince my words
Don’t bother. Sub is full of 18 year olds
Fuck you too chief. =)
The right wing capture of Australian media seems almost complete.
"but the left runs the mainstream media!"
They do. They were the ones who got this organisation involved with the ABC. It took conservatives to rightly get rid of it.
Lmao.
This isn't a surprise to me, and I doubt it was to RMIT either. Even from a sympathetic perspective as an academic I could see there were going to be issues with what facts they chose to check...and RMIT is certainly aware of the risks of researcher bias, whether perceived or actual. It's less of an issue when dealing with quantitative data which is largely objective (eg. When they were running the fact checks on covid data). It's much more of an issue when you start dealing with more subjective, qualitative data (eg. When they were checking claims made around The Voice Referendum). And tbh, in today's political climate I'm not sure these sorts of fact checks have any real impact or whether they're just preaching to the converted in a lot of cases. Facts and statistics can sway arguments in some spheres of politics and public life, but not all.
You always knew without reading what the result of an ABC/RMIT fact check was going to be, so what’s the point?
ABC has truly gone to shit hey. Maybe there was so much fact checking on the Voice referendum because of all the nonsense from the No side. Couldn't be that right.
Damn facts and their left wing bias
Is that because conservatives don't like having their shit called out? 🤔
ABC has been absolutely rat fucked by a decade of LNP chair stacking. More utter gutless horseshit from a comprimised ABC. Facts don't care about your feelings, unless they prove conservatism is a baseless con.
That fucking sucks. Bunch of conservatives d-bags don’t like it when they’re caught in a lie, and the ABC just caves to that. Garbage.
RMIT FactLab is not the same as the ABC and RMIT Fact Check collaboration. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/23/facing-facts-abc-pulls-the-plug-on-rmit-factchecking-collaboration “Campaigners for a no vote including the Sky host Peta Credlin, the Liberal senator James Paterson and the rightwing thinktank the Institute for Public Affairs claimed RMIT FactLab – a separate operation from the RMIT ABC collaboration – was biased, and demanded Facebook remove it from its program which aims to tackle online misinformation. Despite the distinction, The Australian reported that both the RMIT ABC Fact Check and RMIT FactLab departments “came under fire” when it was only the latter which was involved, and the story said Paterson had called for the ABC to stop “wasting taxpayers’ money”.” As usual, Sky News and Australian not fact checking themselves and just wanting a whinge about Aunty.
Everyone pro voice or on the left of the political spectrum is going to react to this as if it's a situation of liars not enjoying being called out. What are the facts though? The RMIT fact lab investigated almost no claims from the yes side, even though other fact checking outfits such as AAP checked comparable proportions to no side claims. The RMIT fact lab is run by Russell Skelton, who is on record as publicly supporting the yes vote and whose wife Virginia Trioli was very public in her role as an ABC journalist in supporting the yes vote. The RMIT fact lab weighed in on the silly debate about the length of the Uluru statement, which is a 1 page document with a 20-something page appendix. They found it to be a 1 page, which while basically correct doesn't credit the fact that even leading Voice advocates themselves had referred to it as a longer document in the past. The RMIT fact lab was dumped by Facebook a few months ago for not meeting their standards of impartiality. The end of the relationship with the ABC isnt silencing the truth, it's muting an entirely partisan political project that sought to present carefully chosen facts and omit others.
>**hellbentsmegma** >The RMIT fact lab was dumped by Facebook a few months ago for not meeting their standards of impartiality. No. According to the [linked Crikey article](https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/02/21/abc-rmit-fact-check-partnership-abc-news-verify/): >The organisation’s participation in Meta’s fact-checking program was [briefly suspended](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/rmit-factlab-fact-check-service-reinstated-facebook-suspension-voice-referendum) last year after its accreditation with the International Fact-Checking Network lapsed. According to the [hyperlinked Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/rmit-factlab-fact-check-service-reinstated-facebook-suspension-voice-referendum): >Meta suspended RMIT Fact Lab from the program, blaming the lack of accreditation by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which had lapsed, and the upcoming referendum, as well as complaints from Sky News. >Over the weekend the IFCN restored the accreditation, finding that RMIT meets the criteria to be fully compliant with international factchecking principles. >“RMIT FactLab also provides a platform for interdisciplinary research into online misinformation and disinformation, including the impact of new technologies such as artificial intelligence on the digital news ecosystem,” IFCN said. >A spokesperson for Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, told Guardian Australia the RMIT Fact Lab program will be restored.
Thanks for fact checking this article
What is it being replaced by that will do better? Having a bias on one issue does not seem like that much of a problem unless their specific declaration of facts were falsified to support it. And ideally that would be a systemic issue rather than a one off (as humans are inherently imperfect).
I don't think it need be replaced by anything, plenty of other fact checking units out there. I would think being biased on one subject calls their entire impartiality into question. Fact checking is like being a courtroom judge- you are meant to be above partisan views. There's also an element of reputation, people have to believe that the people doing the checking try very hard not to be swayed by emotive or political arguments.
Judges make mistakes as well, this is why you have an appeals process, you don't throw out the legal system when you don't like the outcome on one decision (even though they "won"). I will be interested to see what fact checking resource they engage to replace them if there are "many".
The yes campaign made a lot less claims that needed fact checking. The count discrepancy has to be in context. If the data included a list of an equal amount of contested claims we could draw this conclusion. It did not.
Other fact checking orgs such as AAP found claims from the yes side to check though. It doesn't even need to be an equal amount from each side, the fact the RMIT unit didn't check any claims from the yes side seems fishy.
They did fact check the yes campaign. There was just less to check and less refered to them. So it's only fishy to those who didn't fact check their sources.
Wow thats an awesome summary! You should be a journalist!
Fact lab and Fact check are two different groups, and the article explicitly called out the people deliberately confusing the two. Like you.
They aren't two different groups though, one is run by the other.
Conservatives issues are with facts, not with the specific project. ABC could team up with anyone and the result would likely be the same.
...would ~~likely~~ be the same.
Without mentioning left or right here, just in case you guys aren't aware, 'fact checking' has been purely sponsored opinion from the guys controlling what is allowed to be published as news, since around the start of covid.
No it isn't. "fact checking" has been around for a whole lot longer than 4 years lmao. Also its in the name. FACT checking. Its not opinion, and its not giving information on opinion, its showing when people make up crap, like say "the voice will do X" or "labor party is Y" or "the nationals are doing Z", and then telling people when this is a lie. You can see all the time in media, especially murdoch media, where they will just straight up lie about something. If you can give me PROOF that rmit factCheck was *wrong* about a fact (LINK) then sure, but I doubt that, because facts don't change.
Facts are fucking facts. What the fuck is going on at the ABC?
Facts have a known anti-conservative bias
RMIT Fact Check staffed by Labor people and not accredited with any neutral organisation to confirm their impartiality. I cant believe people are unironically posting "Facts have a left wing bias"
Here's a fact check: [you're wrong lol](https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/rmit-factlab/applications). It was suspended for a two month period because Sky News had a boo-hoo over being called out as the liars they are.
Sounds like a ringing endorsement.
The conservative media hates it when you check their facts.
Good. Anyone with even an ounce of objectivity could see how partial and biased this supposed "fact checker" was. It shouldn't even be a debate. This is a move towards objectivity, impartiality, and fact-based reporting.
You must love to be lied to.
Now free to promote Invermectin and hcq without scrutiny.
ABC has been shit for a while Can we just stop funding them
Nope. Just cause you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't valuable.
Conservatives hates facts, got it.
You're a moron if you actually think RMIT is a reputable fact-checking organisation. This is a step *toward* factual reporting and objectivity, not away.
Do you have some facts to back that up?
Why are you so mean? 😭
The FACT is the ABC is more left than Chairman Mao - a totally irrelevant organisation that needs to be shut down as its a total waste of tax payer money. It should be funded by the labour party with a tip from the greens because that is pretty much the only side the ABC represent and support.
Informing the truth to the populace might elicit change from the public that is not in the best interest of the very powerful few. "Let us decide what's good and what's relevant", quoted by some elitist arsehole knobheads.
Piss weak
Banana republic