Facebook’s ‘Independent’ Fact-Checkers Are Political Partisans

Based on the completely fictional narrative that the Russians installed Donald Trump in the White House in 2016, the Democratic Party machine, mainstream media and their Big Tech partners in Silicon Valley – colluded to devise a new network of censorship teams whose primary function has been to police the internet and suppress any information which might be damaging to the Democratic establishment or its transnational corporate backers.

In 2020, their strategy seems to have worked, as they managed to bury damning reports about the Biden family corruption which may have deterred millions of voters had the story been reported factually by the DNC-oriented mainstream media.

They call themselves the “Fact-Checkers” and they claim they are neutral and apolitical, only they are not.

However, the real danger is that this aggressive political censorship machine may have already damaged American democracy beyond repair.

Sky News Australia reports….

An outspoken Twitter activist critical of Donald Trump who brags about being on “team” Hillary Clinton is a supposedly independent expert who approves and recommends organisations to become Facebook fact-checkers.

Facebook fact-checkers have extraordinary powers to censor news stories they disagree with, demonetize news organisations and ban news outlets entirely.

The process of becoming a fact-checker is described as “non-partisan” by Facebook but a Sky News Australia investigation has uncovered disturbing evidence of political bias and lack of accountability at the top levels of the certification process.

International Fact-Checking Network certifier and American University School of Communication professor Margot Susca is unashamedly politically biased but she was responsible for issuing 19 recommendations for organisations to become fact-checkers.

This includes the Associated Press, Check Your Fact, Decrypteurs, Lead Stories, Media Wise and The Dispatch.

(….) In 2019, Ms Susca posted a happy snap with failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton where she admitted “I’ve been on Team Hillary since 08 tbh” and said she was disappointed her likability did not resonate with the public in 2016.

“My boyfriend was her nuclear policy fellow for a year when she was in the Senate,” she wrote.

“Says she’s the smartest, wittiest, most likeable person. It just never came through I guess. So f—ing sad.”

Ms Susca also retweeted content that said: “A projected Joe Biden Win won’t erase the racism shown by Donald Trump and embraced by nearly half of the country’s electorate.”

(….) “It is hard for me to be an objective observer of this presidential administration when for years now they have continuously tried to delegitimise and marginalise news reporters for doing their constitutionally protected job,” Ms Susca said.

However, despite her public political activism Ms Susca holds a key role within the International Fact-Checking Network process which allows her to approve and recommend fact-checking licenses to the International Fact Checking Network Board which formally grants the licence.

Ms Susca was also the person who assessed and recommended the grant of a licence to become a fact checker to Australia’s left-wing opinion website The Conversation in May, 2018.

(….) “I’ve worked in journalism or media for decades so your accusation that I don’t take it seriously is egregious and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

Ms Susca said her tweets were not a display of bias but a “call for news organizations to do fact-based journalism to help average citizens govern themselves in a democracy”.

“I think you’re starting off from a place of bad faith and you are, quite frankly, missing the point of the tweets specifically and my work generally,” she said.

Fact-checkers certified by the International Fact-Checking Network are not automatically allowed to police Facebook content but Facebook only subcontracts organisations recommended a certification by supposedly independent experts such as Ms Susca.

Sky News is not alleging Ms Susca acted improperly when assessing and recommending organisations, only that she may not meet the standards in the IFCN’s own Code of Principles which require fact-checkers themselves to be objective and not publicly support a political candidate.

The IFCN Code of Principles states a fact-checker must not be “affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.”

Facebook partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network after the group wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg complaining that the 2016 US election was influenced by misinformation on Facebook.

Watch this detailed report on Facebook’s allegedly ‘non-partisan” International Fact-Checking Network group:

You can actually participate in the global efforts to cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal's ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for good.

One thought on “Facebook’s ‘Independent’ Fact-Checkers Are Political Partisans”

  1. Respectfully, someone needs to wake up, especially the writer of this piece. Monopolies and Governments worldwide employ fact checkers. As to the veracity of the alleged facts, even Government facts, regardless of political color, well facts only support propaganda… Propaganda, political propaganda equals the truth.

    Anthony P. Healy 🙂 regardless have a happy Christmas 2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *