Fact Check fail
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I have sometimes found fact checks to be useful for debunking certain alternative viewpoints or claims, but at other times I have found fact checks to admit the truth of the claim, while denying it is true at the same time, while employing fallacious logic to rationalise the verdict.
The following fact check from RMIT (a major Australian university) and the ABC (state media) seeks to debunk the claim that doctors can lose their jobs if they say anything against government vaccination policy. In the course of the piece, they admit that that claim is true while at the same time saying it is false; it seems to me by appealing to fallacious logic. As I'm not an expert in logic and fallacies I wanted to run it by you guys to see what you think. I think it's mainly a case of straw-manning and appeal to tradition but they may not be the most accurate ones to apply.
Here is a link, just scroll down to - 'No ‘gag order' on GPs, regulator says'
Before I get to the content of the piece, I want to point something out: If the ABC were to run a story on the Russian or Chinese state media outlets running fact checks on their own governments it would be mocked as sham journalism, and we would be encouraged to pity those living in such totalitarian regimes, where the 'truth' is managed through disinformation by the government through its official organs. This sham journalism is borne out by the fact that RMIT and the ABC restricted their investigation to the regulator themselves, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, also funded by the government. This is supposed to be an independent fact check lol.
Early on in the article it is admitted that doctors may not contradict government messaging on vaccines, or they are in danger of losing their jobs. Fact check verified true, you might think. Now the ABC can speak truth to power and fight this government censorship of medical professionals. In the midst of a pandemic, the peoples health and lives are at stake so good science is paramount right? Every voice has to be heard, and every avenue of investigation opened to the honest researcher, even those that question the consensus. We are all about the science, right?
No, sorry, it's actually fact check: false, because:
a) the policy was in place before the pandemic, b) not a grand conspiracy theory and c) its boring.
I won't quote directly from the article so this post isn't too long, but if you read the article, you will see these as the reasons the claim was deemed false.
Just because something has been happening for longer than some arbitrary point in the past, has no bearing on whether or not it is good or bad for society or individuals. The fact that it has been happening all this time with respect to all vaccines should be all the more motivation for the ABC to demand why doctors are being censored on the subject.
There was no claim of a 'grand conspiracy.' The claim was that certain things took place and certain conditions prevail for a particular group of people. These things are either true or false, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy. If a cover up comes into it at all, it would be in the media's silence on those facts, until they became public and a 'fact check' was necessary. Another strawman along the same lines.
Whether or not RMIT or ABC find something boring has no bearing on whether or not it is true. I think this a strawman based on the the 'fact checker's' (and reader's, thanks to the ABC) biases and stereotyping of what they call 'conspiracy theorists,' and what constitutes a conspiracy.
I'll sum it up:
RMIT/ABC: Is it true doctors cannot speak negatively about vaccines for fear of losing their jobs?
Government regulator: Yes, that is our policy, but it's OK because it's boring and we do it all the time.
RMIT/ABC Fact Check verdict: False, people who share this information are literally killing people.
Comments on Question
Answers
2What about when fact-checkers do a very obviously lousy job and in response to a rebuttal of their "fact-check" are left without a response?
COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
1. Argument showing scientific fraud - Jun 27, 2020
2. Alleged debunking (PolitiFact) - Jul 7, 2020
3. Rebuttal of debunking - Jul 31, 2020
4. No response by PolitiFact or any other fact-checker or scientist
This is a very straightforward article, What Are the Truly Verifiable Facts Surrounding COVID-19?,
by David Skripac who served as a captain in the Canadian Forces for nine years and has Bachelor of Technology degree in Aerospace Engineering exposing the completely unscientific nature of so much of the covid narrative.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-truly-verifiable-facts-surrounding-covid-19/5721128
Fact checks also serve the purpose of providing nuance to a claim. This is what this appears to be doing.
The image meme claims that the AHPRA has a "gag order". The title of the fact check says "No ‘gag order' on GPs, regulator says". This is true. A "gag order" is a legal term with many implications. If I tell my kids not to tell their aunt Petunia that she is fat and ugly, I have not issued a "gag order." The entire article explains the nuance of the AHPRA policy and why doctors going against best practices in medicine can put their jobs at risk.
This is like a meme saying "Bo Beats His Wife." I sometimes beat her at board games , but the meme clearly is suggesting a more nefarious definition of "beats." If I make it clear that I don't physically beat my wife, I am not "strawmanning" a position, simply because the meme did not specify "physically beats." The implication is clear, and even if it weren't, my response (e.g., "fact check") would be to provide elucidation to an otherwise ambiguous claim —one that has undoubtedly been interpreted in the worst way by at least some readers.
If you look at the Wiki page on gag orders, you will see that they are in a different class than an employee going against a policy of the organization for which they work.
RMIT/ABC: Is it true doctors cannot speak negatively about vaccines for fear of losing their jobs?
This is your summary (strawman) of what is being said. There is a difference between "speaking negatively" and rejecting policy based on scientific data. While "speaking negatively" and "rejecting policy" can overlap, "speaking negatively" is not sufficient cause for such fear of risk.
Government regulator: Yes, that is our policy, but it's OK because it's boring and we do it all the time.
No, there is no policy that doesn't allow people to "speak negatively" about vaccines. This is what the entire article was about - providing nuance to an exaggerated position.
RMIT/ABC Fact Check verdict: False, people who share this information are literally killing people.
I read nothing remotely like this in the article. But would it be fair to say that doctors who dissuade patients from getting a demonstrably life-saving vaccine are literally killing people? I think so.
1) There is nothing factually incorrect in this fact check article you linked to.
2) The claim that there is no "gag order" is an accurate rebuttal of the claim on the meme that there is one.
3) The article in general provide nuance to the fact that doctors who go against the policy (based on best medical practices and information) are indeed at risk at losing their jobs.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Where are you seeing anything like this? Where was this rated "false". I have a feeling that if there is strawmanning going on here, it is by you. Social media is making this policy out to be nefarious and conspiratorial (thus the "informed" savior with the megaphone sharing the "truth" with people). As stated in the article, this is standard medical practice and has been for decades. If doctors give bad advice that goes against common medical knowledge and scientific understanding, they risk losing their jobs... or becoming an Internet doctor.