Sure, why not? Sounds like fun.
Jon Stewart debates Fox News contributor ... and has a panel live fact check him!
- Thread starter Aroddo
- Start date
Sure, why not? Sounds like fun.
Exactly. Poland got what it deserves for having, you know, visible land, and daring to walk into the dark alleyway of central europe like that.
Well, this is utterly incoherent. Apparently you think that the Kaiserreich started the First World War because it wanted to annex the German half of Austria, which was led by Hitler.I KNEW IT. The US were the bad guys again.
Most of pre ww1 Austria-Hungry comes from you know Hitler, and how a young Hitler prior to ww1 was like. I find it ironic that Hitler would later go on to use territorial demands of uniting the German people into one country as the trigger point for starting the second world war, identical cause of the first world war
No wonder why Hitler felt that the more numerous and inferior slavs were a threat. The Germans making up a ethnic portion of Austria felt that German should be the national language and felt threatened as they became the minority and were losing power. Hungry seem to have even more racial problems and less liberal laws. No wonder they had annexed two balken countries.
I...don't even know how to respond to that.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
"Most of pre ww1 Austria-Hungry comes from you know Hitler, and how a young Hitler prior to ww1 was like."
Quote of the week.
Quote of the week.
^Well, the Habsburg monarchy at the time was not really miles away from Nazi Germany either. Although Austria got far worse after being reduced to a regional minor. Anti-semitism grew massively in other parts of the old Austria-Hungary as well, if one goes by Kafka's diaries (and Kafka was hardly the most politically concerned or active person). Even from that source by 1920 there were loads of anti-semitic papers with large circulation.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
0 miles away, in fact. The map-distance between the two countries was practically zero.
I think you mean 'large tracts of land'.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Serbia wanted all the serbs living in the Austrian-Hungry empire to become part of serbia. Thus the funding of freedom fighters or terrorist and other attempts to re-unite the Serbian people.
Let me rephrased that my knowledge of Austria-Hungry comes from watching Hitler documentaries, which document a young Hitler in Austria-Hungry before ww1 and paints what Austria-Hungry was like prior to the war. (well mostly Austria)
Aroddo
Emperor
You know, I'm a bit disappointed that no one picked up on the fact that Jon Stewart had Napolitano fact check his key statements by an expert panel with him still present.
This is pretty much unheard of in american news TV as far as I know. Mostly guests can say their nonsense and the interviewer just swallows all the falsehoods, along with the viewers.
This is pretty much unheard of in american news TV as far as I know. Mostly guests can say their nonsense and the interviewer just swallows all the falsehoods, along with the viewers.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Only it wasn't really a "fact check" at all. It was just 3 other people giving their own personal opinions.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
That's true and I'm glad you're saying it, though their opinions were far more authoritative.
there's no such thing as a "fact check", it's only ever about other people giving their personal opinions
(which is a main point, unless- obviously - the subject is based on a very defined system which can be examined in purely theorem-backed fashion).
Constitutions tend to be worded in general ways (also for good reason, despite this causing issues as well), but mostly they are meant to be seen in a "common-sense" manner. Moreover the US founding fathers did present a number of more specific views (eg the one about the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants).
Constitutions tend to be worded in general ways (also for good reason, despite this causing issues as well), but mostly they are meant to be seen in a "common-sense" manner. Moreover the US founding fathers did present a number of more specific views (eg the one about the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants).
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Well, yes. There is such a thing as a "fact check". But it obviously doesn't check opinions.
John Boehner: The United States has seen "a net loss of people with health insurance" because of Obamacare.
Chain email: Says President Barack Obama told a room of students, "Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence," and then a child told him he could solve the problem by not clapping any more.
NAACP: In the U.S., "African-Americans continue to be arrested at nearly three and one half times the rate of whites" on marijuana charges.
Democratic National Committee: In the recent House special election in Florida, Democrats "got outspent in a Republican district."
Barack Obama: "Most young Americans right now, they’re not covered" by health insurance.
Dick Cheney: On Syria, "a lot of the allies signed on. At the last minute, Obama backed off."
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
50 shades of blurred lines there, we can do better than to lump it all into one category of relative.
I don't think you understand epistemology.
Well, yes. But if we're saying that three reasonably distinguished academics in the field don't count as "fact-checkers", but that the website PolitiFact does, I don't think that blurry-edged gray areas in the sphere of human knowledge are the main concern here.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
True, but they were tasked by recalling from memory on the spot, or at least officially. A proper fact check allows some time to reference sources (and, ideally, explain in some depth). It was less a fact check and more a panel of judges. Similar but I'm with Forma here, it wasn't really a fact checking segment.
That's not an unreasonable definition of fact check, but it's not a universally held one, and it's irrelevant to the context of, say, live television shows. Considering the makeup of this 'panel of judges', the nature of the topic and the questions, and the context in which it appeared, I think it's more than acceptable to refer to the panel as being comprised of fact-checkers.
Either way, it's a distinction without difference. Checking the terms of a television debate on history with a group of professional historians is very rare, like Aroddo said, and the effort was quite laudable. Whether individuals refer to that group as a panel of judges or as a panel of fact-checkers means nothing. If they were judges, their opinions held more weight than almost any other such panel that Napolitano would encounter on television, and if they were fact-checkers, they were limited by their abilities of personal recall and preparation slightly more than they would have otherwise been.
Similar threads
