(FamilyConservationPAC.com) – “Fact-checking” has similarities to “fake news” in that it is currently purely subjective.

This week at the vice presidential debate, the CBS moderators made another attempt to project an image of objectivity and fairness.

However, like in the Trump-Harris debate, their interest in fact-checking appeared limited to one direction: the Republicans are opposed.

The topic of Springfield, Ohio, came up again on Tuesday night. Springfield exposed another major issue in this media age.

Margaret Brennan of CBS chose to verify a statement made by JD Vance and promptly disseminated some incorrect facts.

Brennan authoritatively declared in response to Vance’s comment regarding the number of undocumented immigrants in Springfield that, while there are “a large number of Haitian migrants,” they do so with “legal status [and] Temporary Protected Status.”

After that, it was up to Vance to fact-check the fact-checker by accurately pointing out that what Brennan had just explained was, in reality, a “pathway” that Kamala Harris had opened up to deliberately distort the actual numbers of illegal immigrants.

Without his clarification, viewers would have concluded that there are no issues in Springfield or other similar communities because Ohio consists primarily of a sizable population of people who are in the country legally, despite the false claims of illegal immigration.

At least Vance could have corrected his interviewer if he had been brief. Kamala Harris made a series of verifiable assertions during the presidential debate, and her ABC hosts repeatedly allowed her to get away with them.

They must have understood, for example, that Donald Trump and his team have nothing to do with the Democrat boogeyman known as “Project 2025.”

Nonetheless, they allowed Harris to air her assertions, confident that her ABC presenters would enable her to get away with it.

However, this is an ineffective manner of conducting business.

Demonstrating that Donald Trump erred or exaggerated when he said that immigrants from Haiti ate dogs and kittens is one thing.

It is quite another to take things so far in the opposite direction that you wind up believing that communities like Springfield have not actually found it challenging to integrate the large number of illegal immigrants living there.

When you look around the media, you can see the same issue. Many of the media will tell you that they believe it is their responsibility to determine what is true and what is not. However, most of them struggle with the job they set for themselves.

The country’s leading broadcaster, the BBC, recently established a unique “BBC Verify” division to ” fact-check” media material. Even the BBC’s own facts are beyond them.

Verifiably false reports have been overseen by “BBC Verify” numerous times, domestically and abroad.

I recognize the fear that these media outlets are experiencing.

Indeed, the media’s position as the “gatekeepers” of truth has diminished with the rise of social media.

Anyone can report a piece of misinformation that is broadcast on major news networks and platforms like X.

In addition, the influence of the gatekeepers has diminished due to the emergence of a whole new range of media channels.

A painting in Springfield, Ohio, the scene of reports that wild animals and pets are being kidnapped from parks by Haitian migrants.

Government suppression is more dangerous than “disinformation.” However, contrary to what the BBC, ABC, and others believe, navigating the new terrain is not difficult.

People are more intelligent than they think

For example, a story may be considered “fake,” not just if it is inaccurate but also if it is either published or not published to fit a specific narrative.

Consider yesterday’s front-page New York Post article about Doug Emhoff. 

You would have assumed that the media would be interested in a story about a prospective “first husband” hitting up an ex-girlfriend.

However, the media, which leans Democratic, has strangely covered up the news by siding with Vice President Harris and her husband because so many publications and channels are in favor of them.

If there was ever a time when newspapers could effectively end a story like this, that time has passed.

Readers can still locate it today. However, as they do so, the media’s refusal to report on it appears increasingly blatant and progressively less reliable.

The most recent October surprise—the release of fresh data in the federal election case against Trump—was similar.

Are the anti-Trump media indeed swaying the people to follow Judge Tanya Chutkan’s unusual decision to make public prosecutors’ files regarding the viability of a case?

Is this not supplying Kamala Harris with her newest means of assault? Or do people actually recognize this for what it is?

Realizing this is precisely the scheme they anticipated in the month leading up to the election?

It is the latter.

You used to know where you were when it came to some media, and you still do with some papers today.

For example, you pick up this paper knowing that the New York Post detests crime and would prefer it not to run amok in our city.

However, not all journalists express their opinions freely. Furthermore, those who present themselves as “unbiased” or “impartial” are actually the most partial and biased of the group.

A warning about who the true enemy is

These days, good news stories are hard to come by. However, this week’s rescue of Fawzia Amin Sido is one.

The Yazidi girl was captured as an enslaved person by ISIS in Iraq ten years ago when she was eleven years old. A Hamas-ISIS member “bought” her there, and he took her to Gaza to live as his “wife.”

She was reunited with her family following her rescue in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces.

How many American students are aware of these kinds of cases? Or even be aware of who the Yazidi community is? Very few, I would imagine.

A few years ago, a Yazidi survivor of ISIS’s sexual slavery had her university lectures canceled due to concerns that sharing her narrative might “foster Islamophobia.”

It’s interesting what some institutions prioritize.

So the next time you hear a claim that a story needs to be “fact-checked,” let’s call it what it really is…

…The media’s attempt to control the narrative.

With the rise of social media and Americans paying more attention than ever, they have lost their position as the “gatekeepers” of truth, which many now realize has always been biased.

Copyright 2024. FamilyConservationPAC.com