|
Post by millring on Apr 11, 2020 12:09:55 GMT -5
I don't know how the Snopes fact-check could have been clearer. In the headline they put refuse in quotation marks to indicate that as a crucial term. They explicitly indicate that while the WHO test was not adopted here, that was not because there was an offer that was turned down. Instead (and now we're into the detailed narrative) it was the result of a longstanding develop-our-own policy. I can see that John is annoyed at Snopes' "mixed" icon--but that icon indicates that the original claim contains multiple propositions to be evaluated: 1) did we use the WHO tests? 2) were they offered to us? 3) why (assuming they were available) were they not used? And I can guarantee that each of those intertwined propositions have been seized on by commentators and proponents on all sides, deliberately or sloppily. It is true that we did not use the WHO tests, not true that we turned down an offer, true that we do as a matter of policy develop our own. What is addressed only indirectly (via Fauchi's statement) is whether that policy was, in hindsight, a good one. Fact-checking is not a final destination--my own training and experience guarantees that I will read fact-checks with the same attention to detail that I do any account: apply the same semantic analysis, be aware of the same rhetorical machineries, ask the same questions about logic and evidence and sources. What I look for in a fact-check site is that degree of fussiness and transparency of technique (we say X because Y) that I try to apply. They were "fact-checking" a news item that specifically said "refused". You would have to assume that the word "refused" was not intentional for any of the rest of this bullshit to be so. Of course snopes equivocated. The simple question was "did the US refuse..." And the reason it is an issue in the first place is because "refuse" is absolutely germaine to the issue. It is yet another charge of the hate America first press that we were yet again doing something stupid -- forever framing us in the worst possible light. Did we refuse the tests? No. We did not.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 11, 2020 12:24:31 GMT -5
I agree with John on this one.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,339
|
Post by Dub on Apr 11, 2020 12:25:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 11, 2020 12:29:21 GMT -5
It's an interesting exercise to unpick the process of evaluating what looks like a simple claim. It really needs one of those decision-diamond charts, but here's what I have so far:
1) Did WHO have a test? 2a) Did we know about it? 2b) Was it available to us? 3) If yes to 1 & 2, did we use the WHO test? 4) Was it offered to us? 5) If yes to 4, did we turn it down? 6) If yes to 5, why? 7) If yes to 2 and 3 but no 4, why did we not ask for it?
At which point one needs to engage in a description of CDC policy, which raises a different set of questions.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 11, 2020 13:15:01 GMT -5
But the question being asked is your number 5, to which the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 11, 2020 13:17:52 GMT -5
Snopes -
"The U.S. did not turn down an offer to use those tests (as no such offer was extended), nor was it unusual for the United States to design and produce its own diagnostic tests in lieu of those made elsewhere."
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 11, 2020 13:21:06 GMT -5
Then why the 'mixed" icon? It's not just what they say (in text) but what they display (in effect what should be the iconic summary of what they say).
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,339
|
Post by Dub on Apr 11, 2020 13:33:38 GMT -5
I think this (Snopes’ article) is an outrage. I think John should write a long and stern letter to the Snopes people raking them over the coals (so to speak) for answering a question in such an unsatisfying manor. Then, John should make a video for YouTube and Facebook pointing out Snopes’ faults and failures with a view toward starting a popular movement to boycott the Snopes site and refrain from referencing Snopes for any reason. The movement could be called POJO (Potters Opposed to Journalistic Overreach). Donations can be requested online. This will be BIG.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 11, 2020 13:37:01 GMT -5
Then why the 'mixed" icon? It's not just what they say (in text) but what they display (in effect what should be the iconic summary of what they say). Because like fact-checkers generally they hate America. Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 11, 2020 13:49:42 GMT -5
Actually, I'm a big fan of Snopes. I use them a lot. Which is one reason this is concerning to me.
|
|
|
COVID 19
Apr 11, 2020 13:57:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Apr 11, 2020 13:57:09 GMT -5
Then why the 'mixed" icon? It's not just what they say (in text) but what they display (in effect what should be the iconic summary of what they say). Because like fact-checkers generally they hate America. Apparently. Wasn't Snopes the one that was fact checking the Babylon Bee? Maybe being stupid isn't at all involved with hating America.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 11, 2020 13:58:01 GMT -5
Actually, I'm a big fan of Snopes. I use them a lot. Which is one reason this is concerning to me. That's what broke my heart when they started doing this kind of thing regularly. I lost a somewhat dependable source, and I was embarrassed that I had publicly defended them so many times when friends or family doubted them just because they didn't like being proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 11, 2020 14:45:40 GMT -5
This strikes me a fair and thorough overview of the initial testing issues. All the major players take their lumps. lost monthI think it is fair to wonder... 1) If more tests had been available earlier, would it have a) contained the spread of the virus, b) slowed the spread of the virus, c) not appreciably changed the spread of the virus? 2) If more tests had available earlier, would the various states have implemented the various virus mitigation policies they currently have in place sooner or at about the same time? 2a) Would the populations of these various states have followed the various social distancing policies as (relatively) rigorously if they had been enacted earlier or was it the coverage of outbreaks such as those that occurred in Italy swayed the general willingness to follow distancing recommendations? and 3) Did the various Trump press conference quotes referenced in the article ("It'll go away" and "We have its under control") slow the response of various states to the virus or did they ignore Trump's "quotables" and act on CDC information and best interests? Did these various "Trumpisms" cause individual Americans to take the virus less seriously or did they generally ignore them and pay more attention to Dr. Fauci and the images of Italy and quarantined cruise ships on their TV sets? Definitive answers will be hard to come by. I'm inclined to blame everyone and if heads roll, fine. But I don't think the delay in testing allowed the virus to gain its foothold in this country, allowed it to increase its spread once in this country, or will have had any significant effect one way or another on the final cost of the virus. Or is that my hope. Hard to tell sometimes. I do very definitely hope that the testing snafu will come to be viewed as a teachable moment, not a tragic one.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Apr 11, 2020 14:46:13 GMT -5
I’ve personally evolved away from Snopes after seeing a couple of articles where the facts and explanation in the body of the article didn’t agree with the headline and truth-o-meter graphic.
Snopes is just a dude in an attic in Tacoma and another 5 fact-checkers working remotely.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 11, 2020 14:49:37 GMT -5
If I'm reading these posts right, the outrage is focused on the little true/false icon rather than the content of the article. The meat of the article strikes me as careful and detailed (though I haven't followed every piece of evidence back to sources), and it's clear from it that, say, Biden's characterization went beyond the BBC report*, in which "declined" allows a "refused" reading instead of the actual "CDC always uses its own tests" explanation. (If I were editing such a story, that "declined" wording would not get past me.)
This, of course, is the problem with icons and glyphs and thumbs-up/downs and star ratings and other crude, radically flattening, vastly oversimplifiying mechanisms.
The closest I could come to a really compressed answer would be "No they didn't refuse an offer, but their policy is to not use outside-developed tests, and that policy is maybe worth re-examining." You can't pack that into an icon, and even as a short answer it needs to be walked through. Which the Snopes article does.
* Thom Hartmann's tweet, to which Snopes links, is much worse.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 11, 2020 15:04:21 GMT -5
David Mickelson, the Snopes founder and executive editor works in an office in a house in Tacoma. There are 11 (I think) people work for Snopes. Politifact has a 'truth-o-meter'
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 11, 2020 15:28:10 GMT -5
You can't pack that into an icon, and even as a short answer it needs to be walked through. Umm... then don't try, because the result could be misleading? You're a really smart guy: do most people glance at something and immediately go to the meat, or do they go to the summary? How many people do you think check out the summary and skip the rest altogether? My guess would be most. So the summary should be an accurate representation of what's below. What's more, the claim that they are reporting on is, "The United States 'refused' COVID-19 diagnostic tests offered by the World Health Organization." The answer to that is "no." There was no offer, therefore the offer could not be refused. I do not see that as ambiguous. To have an ambiguous answer the claim itself needs to have more to it than what they've got. If you want to have a reply that is nuanced, have a claim to affirm/deny that has some nuance to it. Below the icon they say, What's TrueThe U.S. did not use COVID-19 diagnostic tests produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) in favor of producing its own. What's FalseThe U.S. did not turn down an offer to use those tests (as no such offer was extended), nor was it unusual for the United States to design and produce its own diagnostic tests in lieu of those made elsewhere. That's like saying, Claim: Mary Lincoln shot and killed her husband. Rating: mixture of true and false. What's TrueAbraham Lincoln was shot and killed. What's FalseJohn Wilkes Booth fired the shot that killed Abraham Lincoln. * * * * * Any "outrage I have is because I USE THESE GUYS. I DEPEND ON THEM TO BE ACCURATE. AND THEY ARE BEING SLOPPY.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 11, 2020 15:41:23 GMT -5
If I'm reading these posts right, the outrage is focused on the little true/false icon rather than the content of the article. You're not reading the post right, then.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 11, 2020 15:48:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Apr 11, 2020 15:58:45 GMT -5
Did the sun rise in the east yesterday? Seems that that might be open to question. Facts are such elusive things,, and not entirely free from biased interpretation..
|
|