First it was fake news...

Now it's fake facts... 

So even as the country becomes less and less trustful of the media, the media portraits themselves more and more as the country's guideline to truth and justice. The glaring irony of the latest NT Times advertising regarding "truth" is astounding. It would be a little like the City of Las Vegas running an advertising campaign on the concept of "restraint" or perhaps the Kardashian clan running an advertising campaign on the concept of "privacy".

But the media has now taken things one step further. It's no longer enough for them to be act as if they are the arbitrators of what opinions are right and which are wrong, they quite literally believe that they now have similar authority to deems what is and is not a fact. Strangely whether or not an obvious statement can be ascertained true or false is no longer the accepted means to determine what is and is not a fact. Apparently the difference between fact and fiction is now a nuanced one that only a media actor can judge. Furthermore, it would seem the credentials for being an authority on fact vs fiction is the actions of purchasing a domain name with the word "fact" in it, and then starting a website that "checks" things.

Let me give you a couple of examples of fact checking that has nothing to do with "facts".

First, Donald Trump stood at the podium and told everyone that his approval rating was 55% according to the most recent Rasmussen poll and it was going up. A quick check of the numbers, and it held true that Donald Trump was at 55% and that 55% was higher than previous numbers.

two plus two equals four

Secondly, Donald Trump stated that the national debt had declined 12 billion dollars over the first month of his Presidency, whereas the national debt went up by 200 billion over the same time period eight years ago. Again, these are numbers gathered by objective sources and the numbers were stated accurately by the President.

two plus two equals four

Neither the actual 55% approval rating or the 12 billion dollar number could be disputed. Yet, in both cases the new arbitrators of "fact" declared these facts to be less than factual. In the case of the debt, one fact checker rated the claim "mostly false" even as he conceded it was 100% accurate.

two plus two equals four? Well maybe not.

Now, it's a given that someone can misuse a fact, to make a larger argument. I could make the claim that two plus two equals four and therefore my coldheartedtruth blog is more popular than Donald Trump's twitter site. Obviously two plus two being equal to four has no bearing on whether or not my blog is more popular than Donald Trump's twitter feed. In this case my conclusion is wrong, even as the fact I used to argue it is factually correct. But would anyone suggest that two plus two equals four is "mostly false" simply because I used it as part of a broader argument that wasn't true?

But here is the rub, what happens when a fact is "stated" by a politician such as Donald Trump that seems to run counter to conventional media narrative about the world in general? The Rasmussen poll runs counter to the media narrative that Trump is historically unpopular. Similarly, the national debt numbers count counter to the media narrative that Trump's first month as a President has been a resounding disaster.

Apparently, the new media definition of a  "fact" must now face the added scrutiny of not running counter to a particular media narrative. The claim that there is a Rasmussen poll showing Trump at 55%  cannot be declared "true" (even if it is) because with that claim comes an unstated implication of something that the fact checker deems to not be true. Similarly the claim that the national debt went down by 12 billion dollars while eight years ago it went up 200 billions dollars... cannot be declared "true" (even if it is) because it implies something that the fact checker in question does not agree with.

The more the fact checker vigorously disagrees with the implication the fact suggests, the fact lower rating the checker will provide. This leads to declaring the 100% accurate claims about the debt to be rated "mostly false". Why? Because the fact itself implies that Trump bested Obama on that particular front. Certainly the media cannot stand for anything like that.

Amazingly they cannot understand why people no longer trust them?