<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>leereeves</author><text>Snopes doesn&amp;#x27;t know the objective truth. All they do is check other sources: other media, press releases, and such, and decide whether they trust those sources.&lt;p&gt;How well do they choose sources to trust? When &amp;quot;fact checking&amp;quot; claims that Obama paid for the release of hostages from Iran, they used Vox as a primary source.[1] Surely we all agree Vox is biased.&lt;p&gt;The story originated in claims by Iranian officials, and lacking direct evidence to support either claim, any objective observer would admit there was no way to know whether Iran or Obama was telling the truth. Snopes, not being objective, confidently rated the story &amp;quot;FALSE&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Snopes is most useful when they&amp;#x27;re able to trace a story back to an admitted satirical source. When they attempt to judge the truth of disputed claims, they don&amp;#x27;t know more than anyone else. They shouldn&amp;#x27;t attempt to rate those disputes at all, but the temptation to use the platform to promote opinions is the Shakespearean flaw in fact checking.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.snopes.com&amp;#x2F;obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.snopes.com&amp;#x2F;obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-relea...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>comex</author><text>&amp;gt; And the whole idea of publishing &amp;quot;Fact Checks&amp;quot; like this sounds and feels Orwellian.&lt;p&gt;You think it’s Orwellian for there to be an objective truth separable from political spin?  Because I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around: a big part of &amp;#x2F;1984&amp;#x2F; was how the government ignored truth altogether in favor of whatever ‘facts’ best fit the political agenda of the moment.  “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia,” etc.&lt;p&gt;I know, I know, you’re claiming that Snopes is acting like the government in that analogy… you’d say they’re establishing what purports to be objective truth, and what Google and others are now promoting as such, but in fact may be tainted by political bias…&lt;p&gt;But I don’t buy it.  You say yourself that you consider fact checkers valuable: then it shouldn’t be seen as Orwellian to promote them, even if they’re not 100% infallible.  If anything, what’s Orwellian is the actual government, as currently headed by a president who has (as president) made assertions as blatantly false and disprovable as anything about Eurasia and Eastasia.</text></item><item><author>oblib</author><text>Personally, I think using &amp;quot;Snopes&amp;quot; as a fact checking source gives it much more credibility than it deserves.&lt;p&gt;And the whole idea of publishing &amp;quot;Fact Checks&amp;quot; like this sounds and feels Orwellian.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t mean to say that I don&amp;#x27;t trust those media fact checkers who dig into claims made by competing media sources, but I don&amp;#x27;t trust them 100% and I&amp;#x27;ve seen blatant spin in too many &amp;quot;Fact Check&amp;quot; claims to not have to fact check them too.&lt;p&gt;Hell, I don&amp;#x27;t even trust Google search results anymore.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Redesigning Google News</title><url>https://www.blog.google/topics/journalism-news/redesigning-google-news-everyone/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mustacheemperor</author><text>&amp;gt;an objective truth separable from political spin&lt;p&gt;I agree fact checkers are valuable, but it&amp;#x27;s important to consider them critically because I&amp;#x27;ve yet to find one truly &amp;quot;separate from political spin.&amp;quot; Politifact specifically I find is usually right as a general barometer, but sometimes they reaaally stretch what makes a statement a lie&amp;#x2F;truth. Ultimately they&amp;#x27;re still a media news site and that includes some bias. I first knew Snopes as an urban legend verifier, and at least in my experience their political fact checks retain a more objective voice and tend to be less editorialized. Politifact seems to abuse their &amp;quot;scale of truth&amp;quot; to regard some politicians more critically than others. &amp;quot;Politician X lied, but it&amp;#x27;s only a SORT OF lie, but politician Y from the other side is ON FIRE with lies.&amp;quot; Regardless, Snopes still uses completely biased sources at times and requires canny evaluation itself.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s no getting around it - to have an informed opinion, you need to really understand what&amp;#x27;s happening in the news, educate yourself, and be able to critically evaluate the advice you get from sources like fact checkers. Unfortunately, it seems like that&amp;#x27;s becoming an impossible task in 2017. I think that&amp;#x27;s an opportunity for something better, maybe.</text><parent_chain><item><author>comex</author><text>&amp;gt; And the whole idea of publishing &amp;quot;Fact Checks&amp;quot; like this sounds and feels Orwellian.&lt;p&gt;You think it’s Orwellian for there to be an objective truth separable from political spin?  Because I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around: a big part of &amp;#x2F;1984&amp;#x2F; was how the government ignored truth altogether in favor of whatever ‘facts’ best fit the political agenda of the moment.  “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia,” etc.&lt;p&gt;I know, I know, you’re claiming that Snopes is acting like the government in that analogy… you’d say they’re establishing what purports to be objective truth, and what Google and others are now promoting as such, but in fact may be tainted by political bias…&lt;p&gt;But I don’t buy it.  You say yourself that you consider fact checkers valuable: then it shouldn’t be seen as Orwellian to promote them, even if they’re not 100% infallible.  If anything, what’s Orwellian is the actual government, as currently headed by a president who has (as president) made assertions as blatantly false and disprovable as anything about Eurasia and Eastasia.</text></item><item><author>oblib</author><text>Personally, I think using &amp;quot;Snopes&amp;quot; as a fact checking source gives it much more credibility than it deserves.&lt;p&gt;And the whole idea of publishing &amp;quot;Fact Checks&amp;quot; like this sounds and feels Orwellian.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t mean to say that I don&amp;#x27;t trust those media fact checkers who dig into claims made by competing media sources, but I don&amp;#x27;t trust them 100% and I&amp;#x27;ve seen blatant spin in too many &amp;quot;Fact Check&amp;quot; claims to not have to fact check them too.&lt;p&gt;Hell, I don&amp;#x27;t even trust Google search results anymore.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Redesigning Google News</title><url>https://www.blog.google/topics/journalism-news/redesigning-google-news-everyone/</url></story>