Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
mudds [2018/09/26 15:18] – created Carlos Pedrazamudds [2019/03/09 01:23] – [Debate, Criticism and Additional Facts] Carlos Pedraza
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{::the_mudds.jpg|}}
 +
 +<fs x-small>POSTED MARCH 8, 2019</fs>
 +
 ====== AxaMonitor's New Fact-Checking System ====== ====== AxaMonitor's New Fact-Checking System ======
-/*+{{TOC}} 
 +{{page>byline}} 
 + 
 +We decided following the example of the Washington Post in using a simple graphic to depict our assessment of the factualness of statements made by people covered by **AxaMonitor**. 
 ===== Introduction ===== ===== Introduction =====
-fades 
  
-<WRAP right info 50%>+ 
 +Like the Post's "Pinnochios," **AxaMonitor** will use its own Trek character, a well-known adversary known for his only occasional relationship with the truth. 
 + 
 +<WRAP right info round 320px>
 {{::harcourt_fenton_mudd_2266.jpg?250|}} \\ {{::harcourt_fenton_mudd_2266.jpg?250|}} \\
 <wrap lo>[[mema>Harcourt_Fenton_Mudd|Harcourt Fenton Mudd]]. "Thief —" \\ <wrap lo>[[mema>Harcourt_Fenton_Mudd|Harcourt Fenton Mudd]]. "Thief —" \\
Line 15: Line 25:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-==== Meet Harcourt Fenton Mudd ====+===== Meet Harcourt Fenton Mudd =====
  
-Harry, for short. One of the most popular villains of Star Trek's original series, he was even revived on The Animated Series and //Star Trek: Discovery//.+Mudd, for short. One of the most popular antagonists of Star Trek's original series, the character was even revived on The Animated Series and more recently on //Star Trek: Discovery//.
  
-He's a lying, thieving, self-aggrandizing, greedy and scurrilous scoundrel. So what better Star Trek character to use to rate the veracity and intent of statements upon which we report. Here's how we judge their truthfulness.+He's a lying, thieving, self-aggrandizing, greedy and scurrilous scoundrel. So what better Star Trek character to use to rate the veracity and intent of statements upon which we report. Here's how we judge their truthfulness (descriptions adapted from the Washington Post):(([[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/|Fact Checker: The Truth Behind The Rhetoric]], Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, retrieved 3/8/19.))
  
-==== Muddying the Truth ====+===== Muddying the Truth =====
  
-{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs x-large>**One Mudd**</fs>  Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods. (You could view this as “mostly true.”)+{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs large>**One Mudd**</fs>  Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods. (You could view this as “mostly true.”)
  
-{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs x-large>**Two Mudds**</fs> \\ Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Similar to “half true.”)+<WRAP right round important 320px> 
 +{{::axamonitor_daily_banner.jpg|}} 
 +<wrap lo><wrap em>SIGN UP</wrap> You can [[daily_newsletter|subscribe]] to //AxaMonitor Daily// to see how many Mudds we're assigning to newsmakers covered by **AxaMonitor**.</wrap> 
 +</WRAP>
  
-{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs x-large>**Three Mudds**</fs> \\ Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.” But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three.+{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs large>**Two Mudds**</fs> \\ Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. Someone can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Think of it as “half true.”)
  
-{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs x-large>**Four Mudds**</fs> \\ //Whoppers//.+{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs large>**Three Mudds**</fs> \\ Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions — “mostly false.” This could include statements that are technically correct (based on some kind of data source) but taken so much out of context as to significantly mislead. The line between Two Muds and Three Mudds can be bit fuzzy, so we'll try to what tips us toward a Three.
  
 +{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}}{{::mudd.png?nolink |}} <fs large>**Four Mudds**</fs> \\ //Whoppers//. Just. Wow.
 +\\ \\
 {{::spock_truth_sm.png?nolink |}} <fs 24px>**Spock's Science Insignia**</fs> \\ Statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be recognized with our prized Spock Science Insignia. We tend to reserve this for claims that are unexpectedly true, so it is not awarded very often. {{::spock_truth_sm.png?nolink |}} <fs 24px>**Spock's Science Insignia**</fs> \\ Statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be recognized with our prized Spock Science Insignia. We tend to reserve this for claims that are unexpectedly true, so it is not awarded very often.
  
-<fs 24px>**Upside-Down Mudd**</fs> {{:mudd_invert.png?nolink&bottom|}}  \\ A statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.+{{:mudd_invert.png?bottom&nolink |}} <fs 24px>**Upside-Down Mudd**</fs>  \\ A statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.
  
-{{::sf_jag_sm.png?direct |}} <fs x-large>**Verdict Pending**</fs> \\ There are occasions when it is impossible to render a snap judgment because the issue is very complex or there are good arguments on both sides. In this case, we will withhold our judgment until we can gather more facts. We will use this website to shed as much light as possible on factual controversies that are not easily resolved.+{{::sf_jag_sm.png?direct |}} <fs x-large>**Weighing Judgment**</fs> \\ Sometimes we can't render a snap judgment because the issue is very complex or there are good arguments on both sides. In such cases, we'll reserve judgment until we know more. We want AxaMonitor to illuminate factual controversies that are not easily resolved.
  
-==== Recidivism Watch ==== +==== Re-offenders ====
- +
-Finally, we also have a feature called “Recidivism Watch,” which highlights claims repeated by politicians even though the claim has been previously debunked.+
  
 +{{::tantalus_v.png?40&nolink |}}Finally, we'll also be on the lookout for "Re-offenders" — people who continue to make claims that have already been debunked.
  
 ---- ----
  
-==== Debate and Criticism ==== +<WRAP right round info 320px>
- +
-All judgments are subject to debate and criticism from our readers and interested parties, and can be revised if fresh evidence emerges. We invite you to join the discussion on these pages and contact the Fact Checker directly with tips, suggestions, and complaints. If you feel that we are being too harsh on one candidate and too soft on another, there is a simple remedy: let us know about misstatements and factual errors we may have overlooked. +
- +
-<WRAP right round info 50%>+
 <wrap lo>Portions of this article were adapted from the Memory Alpha article, **[[mema>Harcourt Fenton Mudd]]**, and used here under a Creative Commons [[mema>Memory_Alpha:Copyrights|license]].</wrap> <wrap lo>Portions of this article were adapted from the Memory Alpha article, **[[mema>Harcourt Fenton Mudd]]**, and used here under a Creative Commons [[mema>Memory_Alpha:Copyrights|license]].</wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-==== Additional Facts to Contribute ====+===== Debate, Criticism and Additional Facts =====
  
-If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, please let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We issue our own ruling on factual disputes (see our rules on the “Pinocchio Test” below) but it can be revised and updated if fresh evidence emerges. Our view is that a fact check is never really finished, so the rating can be revised after we obtain new information that changes the factual basis for our original ruling. */+We'll look to revise any judgments if new evidence emerges, and we encourage feedback from readers on the [[face>groups/axamonitor/|AxaMonitor Facebook group]]. Please join the discussions on Facebook, or [[feedback|contact]] **AxaMonitor** directly with tips, suggestions, and complaints.  
 + 
 +Think we're being unfair? Let us know; we're happy to discuss it. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}} 
 + 
 +<WRAP tip 75%> 
 +<wrap em>COMMENTS</wrap> \\ 
 +Discuss this article in [[face>groups/axamonitor/|AxaMonitor's Facebook group]]. 
 +</WRAP> 
 +---- 
 +**Keywords** {{tag>about AxaMonitor fact_check Mudds}}