How Facebook/USA Today do their "fact-checking"

[Mark Crispin Miller]

On Facebook yesterday, I posted the link to Larry Doyle and John Moynihan's

report that, six months before the coronavirus crisis started, Bill Gates had

negotiated the $100-billion contact tracing program with Rep. Bobby Rush, 

who lately introduced the TRACE Act (H.R. 6666) into the House. That link,

which I'd sent out to this list, is here:

https://truepundit.com/exclusive-bill-gates-negotiated-100-billion-contact-tracing-deal-with-democratic-congressman-sponsor-of-bill-six-months-before-coronavirus-pandemic/

Not long after my post, Facebook notified me that "fact-checkers" at

USA Today had deemed that news "false information." Period. What was

false about it, and what the evidence that it's untrue might be, Facebook 

didn't say; so, in search of that correction, which I would naturally send 

out, I found the USA Today piece, which is here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/26/fact-check-bill-gates-did-not-help-craft-hr-6666-contact-tracing-bill/5220823002 

The sources cited to "debunk" the story are the Gates Foundation, which

denies it, and Bobby Rush's office, which denies it. Case closed.

It gets worse. My friend Josh Mitteldorf, an evolutionary biologist, wrote a 

follow-up piece about that scandal, and posted it on Op Ed News—whose 

editor, Rob Kall, then posted this snide comment under it:

Wow. And we know this because of website reports that two podcasts said it. Powerfully impressive. Not. How about calling it Gatessteria? Does this cause you some inner conflict between your scientist self and your believe anything that smacks of conspiracy self?  And of course, we have our member who sees everything through New World Order colored glasses chiming in.  Sorry. This is anything but convincing. Can you lower your criteria any further? The thing is, posting lame content like this to OEN lowers OEN. How do you assess content? What are your standards?

Note that Kall hadn't bothered listening to those "two podcasts," but just 

assumed they couldn't possibly be worth his precious time, since, in his

view, any criticism of Bill Gates is just "Gatessteria." Likewise, any writings

on the New World Order are, necessarily, insane, even though it's hurtling

at us like a giant asteroid that anyone with eyes can see, as those pushing

it have made no bones about it, even if they don't call it "the new world order" 

(as, say, Bush the Elder did, and, more recently, Chicago's Mayor Lori 

Lightfoot did), but "the new normal," or—to be more precise—the UN's 2030 

Agenda for Sustainable Development (which is all about "transforming the 

world") and/or the UN's Agenda 21. 

Thus Rob Kall, editor of the "alternative" Op Ed News, deploys the sturdy

tactics of the CIA to "answer" a report at odds with the Official Story of

Bill Gates as a towering humanitarian, contact tracing as a necessary

measure to protect the public health, and Bobby Rush as the progressive

legislator who came up with H.R. 6666 entirely on his own. Rather than 

look into it, Kall reflexively dismisses Mitteldorf's entirely reasonable 

piece with personal insults and mere snorting ridicule, just as the New 

York Times and all the other CIA-affiliated media have been "answering" 

dissenting views since 1967, when they first started doing it to safeguard 

the Big Lie about JFK's state-managed murder.

Getting back to Facebook's quasi-censorship, and to end this with a bit 

of humor, here is Josh Mitteldorf's response to USA Today's "fact-checking": 

              I asked Bonnie if she robbed the bank, and she said no. Then I 

              asked Clyde, and he confirmed exactly what Bonnie said. 

         

              They can't both be lying.

MCM