Fact checker or follower?
Reports appeared on this site that CommonSense is under attack from so-called fact checkers. (source)
Fact checkers employed by the KRO / NCRV Peter Keizer and Tanne van Bree claim that CommonSense, and I quote,"Is right-wing radical and structurally spreads fake news."
Now I don't know if there is such a thing as a fact-checker school, a fact-checker course, or whether their employer has appointed them as a fact-checker or whether they have taken that title themselves.
Who can tell when you can call yourself a fact checker, right?
I emailed these two fact checkers in response to their allegations containing the main text below. After all, when you call yourself fact checker, there's been plenty of work around the corona hype lately, right? So what facts do you check?
The factual accuracy of government communications and their actions? Or do you focus on the factual accuracy of those who question the accuracy of government communications?
So let's take a look at that fact check by Peter Keizer and Tanne van Bree of the KRO / NCRV regarding their own, and their employers, fact checking this year.
Your broadcasters showed uncensored images of people in ICUs who may be suffering from corona with the aim of highlighting the seriousness of the corona threat.
Why don't your broadcasters show uncensored how people are being cut out of a car wreck or suffer a life restriction due to a traffic accident? After all, this makes the people more aware of the dangers of traffic, which is in the same vein as 'corona awareness'.
Don't say the traffic isn't contagious. Before you know it, you will be 'infected' by a truck that does not give way, right? Why this one-sided focus on corona? What prompts that?
What risks are there that could have a greater impact on public health than corona? Consider, for example, the causes of cardiovascular disease and cancer (> 150.000 deaths per year).
Why does the government not aim to the same extent for measures that (largely) remove that risk? That would have saved considerable suffering for years, wouldn't it?
The logic of the measures could not (and can no longer) be explained in terms of content.
What conclusive explanation is there for the fact that unprotected contacts of health care workers both outside and within the institutions did not seem to pose a danger to those poor detained elderly people and that contact with family would be a mega danger?
Or how a contact at 1,5 meters behind a fence poses no risk of contamination and without that magical fence means an absolutely certain contamination? Whether 300 people in an airplane pose no danger and 50 people in a coach represent a danger?
Quarantine is extremely harmful to health. Even a short period of 10-14 days is potentially very harmful. A review by The Lancet, a very leading medical journal, shows that factually substantiated.
What are the chances that it will damage the health of frail older persons to be protected if they are (partly) locked up against their will for three months? And what consequences would that have for their physical and mental health? Why has the government not taken these facts into account in its decision to lock the elderly in institutions? Did they not know or did the government deliberately refuse to do so?
About 4 weeks after the 'intelligent' lockdown, a civil blessing was not allowed in the presence of family and friends. An ecclesiastical blessing, however.
To what extent should a (self-proclaimed fact-finder) wonder what the motives are for this absolute arbitrariness? Are there hidden political agendas?
For example, a denominational coalition partner that needed to be pacified? It has been known to happen. Or isn't that a fact?
Rutte and his co-directors claimed in March that there would be no economic crisis.
To what extent are they incompetent not to foresee something so obvious or were there other things going on in the background and if so, which ones? Or did the government consciously distribute fake news and if so with what motives? And if the sea really hadn't foreseen, how should we view the rest of their policy decisions in that light?
In early January, the government declared 'that corona' would not come to Europe because it was a "Asian affair".
Question: To what extent has the government ignored the lessons of the 2003 SARS outbreak? Were people not aware of how quickly SARS spread then or were these facts deliberately ignored? Why did Rutte follow that line even when corona was found in Italy?
Ostrich politics, ignorance or something else?
ICs have been found to be 85-90% occupied for several years during the winter period. Led by Rutte, motivated by financial motives, the 'redundant' IC capacity was cut back to its current level, against the advice of the WHO following the SARS outbreak.
What motives did the government have for disregarding WHO's advice or was it unknown? What advice did RIVM give to the government when IC capacity was reduced? Has RIVM pointed out the risks? To what extent was the government aware that people would be unprepared if there was only a small unforeseen additional demand for IC capacity? Have the Rutte governments consciously taken the risk of insufficient IC capacity and, if so, what price tag has the government placed on a lifetime?
Was it not the case that no lock down measure could be canceled due to being too expensive? Where did that turnaround come from?
Governments and their statements are not always complete and / or truthful. The integrity of government actions is also not always above suspicion. Past events demonstrate this beyond doubt.
To what extent have statements by Rutte governments on major and minor issues proved to be incorrect? Do you know, and if so, what inconveniences and cover-ups are attached to the successive Rutte governments? And when there are many examples of this, and there are, where does that unconditional trust in government communications, their motives and actions come from? What fundamental change took place in the governmental and administrative apparatus that made the actions of the government during the corona hype as irrefutably honest, substantively correct and effective?
Several well-known and acclaimed investigative journalists, including Pieter Klein, show with hard facts that political machinations of successive Rutte governments undermine democracy.
Why do fact finders not dig deeper into these matters on behalf of their broadcasting boards or look for clues that demonstrate the breadth and scope of undermining democracy? Why don't they point out the dangers of the direction of our democracy in elaborate articles?
The Constitution and civil liberties have been compromised. Highly eminent scholars of law, lawyers, lawyers and human rights organizations have established this fact beyond any doubt.
Why, on behalf of their broadcasting boards, do fact finders not look for alternative motives for these far-reaching violations of our freedoms, but do they defend public positions and statements uncritically?
And so I can continue for a while.
I don't expect an answer from either of you at all. The fact is that in my opinion you are completely politically correct and indoctrinated, and you think you are far above the plebs that do fact-checking themselves, ask critical questions and look for alternative explanations. Since these are almost by definition people who are not among the politically correct, in your view their facts are indisputably suspect in advance and of zero and no value.
It is a fact that not everyone who does not participate in the mainstream always has his or her facts straight. It is also a fact that this also applies to the press. Enough examples. I would say check your facts.
The media, hopefully well trained and aware of their social task, has deliberately opted for slavish docility instead of checking facts and asking critical questions.
For every investigative journalist who digs and digs, there are 19 'professional brothers' at the edge of the pit who, under the approving watch of the rulers, try to close that pit again as quickly as possible.
So, value fact checkers, as Bob Marley said: 'You can fool some of the people some of the time. But you can never fool all of the people all of the time '.
When you, Mr. Peter Keizer and Mrs. Tanne van Bree, have all the answers to all the questions I asked above, you may call yourself a fact checker. I would love to hear from you.
And until then I conclude with a Biblical statement that, given the broadcaster you work for, you should definitely sound familiar:
"Throw the beam out of your own eye before you notice the splinter in your brother's eye."
I wish you wisdom and insight for the future.
Article where KRO / NCRV accused CommonSenseTV of the radical right and fake news spreaders
Emails from the fact checkers: