Vain Jangling
Independent fact-checkers are non-partisan fact-checkers.
If one has watched the news, listened to talk radio, or used social media, they have at least heard the term fact-checker and have probably seen the fact-checked disclaimer. Did it stop you from reading, believing, or sharing it? For some it did. For others, not so much.
What is interesting is the vain jangling [un]necessary use of terms like “independent” or “non-partisan” added to the term fact-check[er]. A fact is a fact because it is true. It is a fact, a truth whether it is liked or not, whether it is held by a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian— Christian, Muslim, Atheist—those who agree or those who disagree.
The trouble is when platforms (party, media, social media) claim to use “independent/non-partisan” persons or companies (or bots created by such) who they know agree with them or will conform to agree with them, merely to help maintain or encourage a set narrative. That is called manipulation. Fact.
This is not meant to say their are no honest fact-checkers performing honest fact-checks. There are. The problem comes when persons, parties, or platforms use “facts” for personal gain rather than truth.
Consider this the next time the “fact-check[er]” shows up.
— Facts that are true, obvious, undeniable, easily verified.
— Facts mixed with lies, slander, to make it seem (partially) false.
— Facts conveyed, manipulated, to fit a narrative or viewpoint.
There might just be a bit of vain jangling when something is fact-checked false today but true tomorrow (or vice versa) when it fits an “independent/non-partisan” narrative, but not the other guy’s.
Vain Janglings 