Over the past few years, there’s been a rise in so-called fact-checkers. Sometimes, these fact-checkers are responsible for overseeing political debates or speeches and then pointing out inaccuracies.
In other cases, fact-checkers are tasked with the responsibility of adding disclaimers onto social media posts. It is all too common on mainstream social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
However, as many Americans have noted, fact-checkers are far from the unbiased heralds of truth they pretend to be. Red State is drawing attention to yet another fact-checker who exposed her leftist bias.
Associated Press (AP) reporter and fact-checker Amanda Seitz are in the hot seat. Seitz recently penned an article for AP where she accused former President Trump of “inciting” hatred.
Throughout the piece, Seitz lamented the quality of posts on Facebook that occurred during May 2020, around the period of George Floyd’s death. This AP fact-checker also took issue with Trump warning looters and rioters about the consequences of burning buildings, destroying property, etc.
Seitz declared Trump’s warning to the agitators in Minneapolis, Minnesota arrived on May 28, 2020. Later, she declared the then-president’s remarks engendered a surge of “hate speech” on the internet.
Ironically, what this AP fact-checker failed to do was check her facts. As it turns out, Trump’s warning for the rioters and looters was posted on May 29, in the wee morning hours, not on May 28.
In claiming that Trump incited violence on May 28, Seitz sought to narrate that the former president’s remarks caused violent demonstrations to “engulf” cities nationwide. Yet, this false narrative falls apart, given the inaccuracy of the timeline Seitz presented.
If fact-checkers want to be seen as credible sources of truth and unbiased information, they need to conduct themselves accordingly. The false narrative sewn throughout Seitz’s AP article is all the more reason why conservatives remain consistently outspoken against the apparent bias of fact-checkers.
Many folks are going to read Seitz’s article and believe every word she wrote. They won’t take time to do a deep dive and realize Seitz’s entire narrative crumbles because the timeline of events doesn’t support what she’s saying.
Perhaps the Associated Press should have had someone else fact-check Seitz’s article before it went live. Another option would be for fact-checkers to shed themselves of anti-conservative, anti-Trump bias and realign their focus on truth rather than personal opinions or vendettas.