I Feel As In Order To Achieve A High Knowledge Of Education , You Have To Be A Deep Learner. Its aBout How MuCh Yoi Want It , No One Cant Give You An Education...
AI think that Fact Checks is just a waste of time, because it never accomplishes ist purpose. It is clear that no matter what Fact Checks do, politicians never seem to get affected by this. In contrast this helps politicians by giving them fame. I feel that it is honest and brave of the Fact Checks to want people to know the truth, but they are not winning anything out of all their effort. Adair said, " Our mission is to inform readers, not to change the behavior of politicians." It is true, I agree that politicians don't always say the truth to the people , and sometimes they decide to tell the truth when something else happens. They reveal the truth after months, years, or days. Adair said, " PolitiFact is working on ways to shrink the gap between when people hear a claim and when they look up its trustworthiness." This is why people already know that Politicians always put things to their own benefit. They only talk according to what they want people to hear, and what they know will increase their fame and their chances to get elected. So, it don' t matter what anybody tries to do, they'll never win against politicians, nor the government. Anyway, people gets to know the truth at a point. Eventhough most of the times it' ll be late.
Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians?
Dana Farrington/ npr.org, November 11, 2012
I agree with many of the points made in the article, Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians by Dana Farrington, and it makes me uncomfortable to realize that even though we have many opportunities to check out the reliability of a politician's words and promises; they are still willing to fabricate the truth.
This article opens up with the statement, “Just because there's more fact checking, doesn't mean there's more truth telling.” It is crazy to recognize that politicians know that their facts and claims will be investigated but they continue to lie and spread gossip. That really makes me wonder, HOW DUMB DO THEY THINK THAT WE ARE ?!?!?!? I feel really disrespected when I think about the fact that we can check any fact using our cell phone or computer. There is even an app for that!! Settle It! mobile app is setup so that you can search their database to get much needed on the spot information. It amazes me that now that we know how to get to the truth quicker that we are not STEPPING UP OUR GAME and tell the truth????
Ms. Farrington states that politicians are not acting as though they will get in trouble for their lies. They conduct “campaigns seemed to live a life beyond consequence” and I really have a hard time accepting that politicians are still willing to smear a candidate’s reputation by spreading falsehoods. Whatever happened to the truth? Why is it that the same people that we are to put our trust and faith in, are the same ones who are willing to lie to use to get their own way?
Adair, of PolitiFact, is pleased that they “post a Twitter widget on our site so people can get up-to-the-minute links to related fact-checks.” He likes the fact that their service can provide viewers with the opportunity to get and check information quickly. Social Media allows for instant notification
Social Media has allowed us to get out messages quicker and have the opportunity to 'look them up.'
WorMany Students achieving College Should approach Their Aspect Of Accumulating Knowledge By Having The Passion For Learning. Not To Get Comfortable With Failure , But To Try Your Hardest. Seek Others To Relate Upon Your Studies. Make A Connection With People To KnOw That Your Main Point Of Being In College Is Worth It. Always Be Yourself And Do Be Right.
This article is interesting because it actually shows me that the politicians are still willings to do negative stuff even though they still have people watching them. David Carr of the New York Times even said it himself "the most fact checked [presidential] election in history." I think the presidents really don't care. Even though they're in the "spot-light" they're willing to say or do anything to stay in the "spot-light". Its stupid and crazy for presidents to wanna stay in the spot even after they have negative news going around about them.
"Our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians," said Adair, who partnerd with NPR on election coverage. Once they put information out on the internet, its up to the readers to take the info negatively or positively. To me, in my opinion, everything journalist put on the intenet is intended to take negatively. (but thats just my opinion.)
The social network is a perfect place to put information out. They know that viewers are going ti comment on what they said negatively and is going to get alot of attention for it. Twitter is a good example because the journalist can but ANYTHING negative on the twitter and they are going to have at least 100,000 people who repost that comment so other people can see it and comment.
Will Facts Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians? I agree that this will be ignored in a lot of situations. In some the Politicians could stretch out a lie about there facts make a illusion that its the truth. They will find a way to hide the truth the best they can to get there votes. Even go to the low of ruining someone else's reputation. People will only know of the false information if its brought up to them.
At times it's not a game of right and wrong facts , usual its runs like a popularity contest. Plus a lot of the information could be pulled on someone and we don't know if its true.
Unless the facts are serious facts then they will be taken serious. At times like today Peoria don't care about backstory but more about upfront facts. Once they hear the first few facts they will over look any fact checks. People dream of of a politician they will fix all there life problems when reality they won't. If there blunt with what is really going on they will take it serious when brought to them.
Could be brought to them from News,Websites,Letters or even T.V. But how some of the things today , facts are clouded by people who just want to catch people's attention. Lies were built up from the News and Websites where it's hard to believe anyway. " the boy who cries wolf " people just stop caring in days like today. Which shows my point Politicians will ignore fact check while people don't care.
I think fact-checking is very important. Politicians can tell the public anything and they will believe them. We don't have any proof.
During a election candidates will say anything to make themself look good. Their goal is to say things to get elected in the first place. Now we can get facts about what the are telling us.
The NPR informs the public with election coverage. ''We already provide instant information during debates through our Twitter feed".
A politican said "we post a Twitter widget on our site so people can get up-to-the-minute links to related fact-checks.
"Candidates already know they are going to be fact-checked"
" we are like cops on a highway with radar guns."
"The drivers know we are there and sometimes they decide to violate the speed limit anyway"
With fact-checks now we can find the truth and see id the candidates told the truth or not "campaigns seemed to live life beyond consequence".
"PolitiFact is working on ways to shrink the gap between when people hear a claim and when they look up its trustworthiness."
The Settle It! mobile app. allows people to quickly search yhe datebase.
I agree because fact checks will always be ignored, just because there's more fact check, doesnt mean there's more truth telling politicians behavior is impossible, and knowing the fact that politicians behavior will never change. Its not right how politicains use people in use others not understanding why they use american people..
Its upsetting to me because you can use social networks to find information online about the fact checks its sad how you can go online in look up things about the people n how they living there life
ya fake bald headed hoe
I think fact checks are interesting because even with the actual facts the politicians still stretch the truth and spread lies around about themselves that they know is wrong and dishonest but they do it anyway so they can boost their campaign to get that lead in the debate, election, etc. I believe that even if you’re trying to win the campaign for whatever the occasion you should be true and honest on whatever facts you try to throw out there at least you would have been honest about it.
What really amazes me is we can check our electronic devises to look up just about anything we want. To know about what’s happening today, what might come up in the future, or what happened in the past so basically we have the power to look up facts about the politicians. It’s simple stuff that they just don’t know is online about them. Technology is used for so much today and not to be offensive but they might be a little too old to realize it.
So to be honest I think fact checks will always be ignored by politicians no matter what facts are posted, said, tweeted, liked, etc. politicians will ignore them like a kid ignoring a baby crying.
How trustworthy do you find Fact-Checking groups like Politico?
I feel as if Fact-Checking is trustworthy in some ways and isn't trustworthy, they say " Our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians" I don't agree with this because not matter what Fact Checks do or say, the politicians are never affected by it. It's the truth, because politicians don't always say the truth, to the people. Some just lie to get up where they want to be. Now as far as their trustworthiness Politicians always put things to their own benefits, tell people what they want to hear, only trying to increase their chances of getting elected.
The most fact checked presidential election in history didn't work. They didn't seem to care about what they said both campaigns seemed to live a life beyond consequenice correctly discerning that it was worth getting from a journalist these people will can't help but lie that all they even if they fact checked the checker would be like a political actors
Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians?
“Just because there’s more fact checking, doesn't mean there’s more truth telling.” What this means is, just because they are going to fact check, doesn't mean they are still not going to lie. This is a fact because it’s backed up by facts.
The article states that “the most fact checked [presidential] election in history” didn't work. Well this is probably didn't work because they didn’t have enough facts to back up the fact check. The purpose of a fact check is to inform the readers and listeners if the politicians are telling the truth or not. Fact checking could interrupt the politicians’ narratives because everyone would worry about the fact check more than the speech itself. A fact check on Twitter is a good idea because every time they say something, you could just check Twitter and see if it’s the truth.
The article uses a perfect example in comparing themselves (the fact checkers) with cops with radar guns and (the politicians) are the drivers who decide to violate the “speed limit”, which in this case is going over the “lying limit.”
The article also states that “the next step to harness technology to get it in front of people when they need.” I feel like this is an opinion because technology sometimes messes up information that may be important. Nyhan suggested that after the debate, there should be a fact checker on T.V. ,which I think is a great idea!
Just because there’s more fact checking, doesn’t mean there’s more truth telling. I agree with this statement because politician just keeps urging their false facts just to make things be in their favor. It is funny to think that even though people can easily find the truth themselves through facebook, twitter and even in newspapers they still pushing their luck to make it through. “Our mission is to inform readers, not to change the behavior of politicians” by this statements people are trying to spread the facts but instead politician change their way of approach in getting people to support them. “To judge credibility, the fact checkers must be regarded as credible judges”. Fact checkers unlike all other must be credible judges to judge credibility. Politicians tend to bend the truth when they are aware of fact checking organizations because in my opinion they want to stir up the opinions of different people to change their point of views.
In my opinion the article "Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians?" have alot of g
I think that the fact-checking group "Politico" is not trustworthy because anyone can post false information abot each party, or can expose some information that the parties did not want to release.
Fact-checking can also be an advantage for the presidential debate. Each party can tell what the president wants to change and how. It can also tell the achevement of each president.
Social Networking is a great advantage too. Posting on social networks like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, it can reach out to the youth and teens so they can comment their opinons and how they feel about the debate.
Politicans bend the truth when they are aware of fact-checking organizations because each party will try to beat down the next by telling lies about each other so they can win.
I dont find fact checking groups trustworthy because people end up exaggerating the truth. Politicians try and find the truth about other people just so they can look good and make others look bad. People wouldnt have to fact check so much if theyd just stop lying. Why lie? The truth always comes to light. Fact checking can get really messy just by how much dirt people can get on you. Those who do fact check should be credible judges. If you do fact check you should make sure that the information you put out there is true, because false information will make you look bad.
In my opinion the article "Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians?" have a lot of good details that I ca understand. In the article the first line says "Just because there's more fact checking, doesn't mean there's more truth telling." By this I believe that you can't always trust what you read because they don't know if their facts are accurate or true. A way they use fact checking is for the presidential election, which is a really good example. They aren't trying to help one president because in the article they state, "Both campaigns seemed to live a life beyond consequence." Both runners up would lie to get what they want. Maybe one day they'll get the facts to crawl at the bottom of your tv screen, so millions of people can see. These people who fact check people are not a secret to one because people know them. They say, "we are like cops on a highway with radar guns. The drivers know we are there ad sometimes they decide to violate the speed limit anyway." By this I just think that people hope not to get caught even though its and possibility. When they state, " real time fact checking by moderators can be messy business" it means all of their facts aren't always true and they admit to that.
In my opinion,I think that politicians as well as many others,will lie even though their lies will be found out.Fact Checkers were there to catch people in their lies and to help them understand that lying is not worth it.Why should anyone get mad or feel offended because of getting caught in their lie. When a person lies,they should already know the cost if proven guilty.It is just easier to come out with the truth from the beginning instead of having to deal with drama and misunderstanding in the end.Why does people still lie? If someone has done something wrong,they should just confess and suffer the consequences.Telling the truth is not a bad thing at all. How it may be said is the problem.In the article it stated that both campaigns seemed to live a life beyond consequence.This is how everyone's lives should be. To live in a healthy environment,and be at peace.
This article went our during the election on November 11, 2012. The article says that "just because there's more fact checking, doesn't mean there's more truth telling". That quotation make me think that the fact checkers lie to the people too. The politicians they do what they want because both campaigns seemed to live a life beyond consequence and Bill Adair of politifact say Carr "really misfired"- that mean what he said was wrong. they ask Adair about if he do the fact checks later and not during the depart or speech. his response was "we already provide instant information through our twitter feed, which has 171,000 followers", and with that mean he won't stop to provide information to the people. Brendan Nyhan said "people might not always need information immediately" he advocated for "blind debate coverage" and I'm disagree with that because the people need to be informed. they said real-time fact checking by moderator can be messy business, I think this is interesting because what would happen if some of the moderators make a mistake and give wrong information, that can cause a big problem. I think we don't have to trust too much in the fact checkers because they can lie too. So we have to be careful in what information we trust.
Just because there's more fact checking doesn't mean there's more truth telling.
I think this article is interesting because i did not know there was anything called fact checking. Until I read this article I thought that the politicians could just tell us whatever we wanted to hear. David Carr of "The New York Times" declared that journalistic efforts to set the record straight during "the most fact-checked [presidential] election in history" and it didn't work. I find this quote interesting because the 2012 presidential election was the most fact checked. I also says that even thought it was the most fact checked it still didn't work. This tells me that even though the politicians were fact checked, they still told lies. I find this interesting because as I watch the debates, I always believed that the politicians had to tell us the truth. But based on this article, it tells me that for all I know the politicians could tell me anything. This election was very important. Everyone felt as this election was going have a huge influence on their life. This election was the first election that was on tv or the radio all day. This election was the topic of many peoples' conversations. I think this article is interesting because the politicians know that they will be fact check and they still lie, This to me shows that the politicians don't care as much as we think they do. It shows that the politicians will lie to win, whether they have to lie or not. I believe that fact checks will always be ignore by politicians because they don't think people will pay attention to the fact checkers. I think that in the heat of the moment the politicians will lie about anything to get ahead.
In the article, they relate fact- checking to the recent presidential election with Obama vs. Romney. Farrington says, " Just because their more fact checking, does not mean there is more truth telling" This confuses me because if it is suppose to be "facts" then why wouldn't be completely true? Is this article trying to tell us that what we see and hear from the fact checkers are not always completely honest? I feel like fact- checking is a complete waste of time because people will believe what they want to believe whether it is true or false. They will believe whatever the candidate they go for says and, most of the time, nothing else will make them change their mind. Even though the thought of fact-checking is used to get the truth out for the citizens, I really do not think people care about what they see below a television screen or on their Twitter feed. Now and days people have their mind and heart devoted to one candidate even before any debate so whether they see facts bashing there favorited candidate it will not always make them change their mind.
Adair wrote, " Our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians." Even though politicians know that whatever they say will be critiqued by fact- checkers, I do not think they care what they do put out to the public because they know the facts will not affect who the citizens want to vote for. Politicians say what they want people to hear even though it is not what they plan on doing or actually did but if they can persuade the voter than that is all they want to get from their debate. So once the fact- checkers exploit whatever the politician said was false theycould probably care less because the voters will believe the politician of their choice over the fact- checkers anyday. That is why I think fact- checking is completely useless and does not have an affect on the voters because people will believe what they want to hear rather than getting told the ugly truth.
I agree with alot of the things this article has to say. The November 11, 2012 article on fact checking held several truths.The Obama v. Romney election may have been "the most fact checked (presidential) election in history", but, the truth of the matter is that honesty is not always in the political forefront.
The misinformation of the public is a part of politics. Fact checking helps to give Americans peace of mind about how true statements issued by "the powers" can be. Sites like PolitiFact provided instant information to it's 171,000 followers on Twitter. They used social networking to get the truth out to the public. Throughout the Presidential Debate they pumped out up to the second updates and checked their facts.
When CNN's Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney in the Presidential Debate, she recieved backlash. Rich Lowry stated, "It's not the role of a moderator even in these debates to be the fact checker." This statement raised a question in my mind. Isnt it her job to make sure the public is correctly informeed? Misinformation can change the way a person views one candidate in comparison to another, which can change the direction of an election.
Fact checking in it's essence is plain old fashioned journalism. It doesn't rely on he say, she say, but on true blue facts. In the article it read the "..the more adamant fact checkers are about their facts, the more partisan they appear." Personally I dont believe any of that should matter. We, as a country, should only care about getting the most reliable information. The political affiliation of the fact checker or journalist shouldn't matter. I hope that my generation will see the handwriting on the wall, and forget about all the things that delay our seeing the truth.
I never knew that politicians can get fact checked. This article is really surprising because we are suppose to trust our leader. The fact that a fact check is needed makes it really hard to trust our so called " leader ". The 2012 election was the most fact checked election ever. I believe that every election should be fact checked because in the end, we are the ones voting for our leader that runs this country. I don't want to waste my vote on somebody who has to lie in their campaign because when do I know that they are telling the truth. Adair, whose group occasionally partnered with NPR stated, Our mission is to inform readers not change behavior of politicians." It's crazy to see what lengths people go to in order to recieve power. Now I understood why the captions were under my tv screen during the election
In this article entitled Will Fact Checking Always Be Ignored By Politicians, Dana Farrington-author- states how throughout history, politicians never fact. However, the Presidential Election of 2012 was the most fact checked election in history. I truthfully agree because every opposition was backed up with a fact of some sort. Not only that, every statement was backed with a fact. Especially at the debate[presidential. The fact throwing got so bar that many decided to call it a factbate! Dana Farrington of the New York Times could not have gotten it more right.
The problems with the American political process begin and end with factual information. Facts are not interpretive, they are absolute. "We aren't going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." exemplifies the republican approach to politics. This is why the whole of the conservative media machine was in shock of the concrete win by democrats and the president. They weren't looking at the facts. They bring their own interpretation when the truth doesn't suit their agenda. Respected fact checking outfits and scrutiny by the media will steadily chip away at this formula, but the core constituents of the republican party will likely continue believing the fallacies projected by their leadership.
I agree witht the quote from the article, "just because there's more fact checking, doesn't mean there's more truth telling." Politicians are clearly not affected By these fact checks. It's outrageous to know that politicians continue to fabricate the truth and lie when the truth will be investigated. Fact checkers are out there to confirm or deny every word politicians say. Politicians tend to say anything people want to hear, anything to get them elected and increase their popularity.
Anyone can fact check a politicians speech, but this necessarily doesn't always happen. In the article Adair responded to its All Politicsvia email and stated, "We already provide instant information during debates through our twitter feed, which has 171,00 followers." There are more than 171,000 citizens in the United States, so not everyone will be able to see these proven, correct facts.
Instead if giving politicians the notoriety of a political leader, they're given fame and popularity. Many people can argue over whether fact checking is important or not, in some cases it is a waste if time. No matter what anyone says a politician will continue to act as they do now. They will continue to fabricate their truths. So why continue to fact check? I think it's important because its important to know what type of leader we are electing to run our country.
i don't agree with these Politician people. They're lying during their debate and speech. We're the people that so dumb to listen to them while knowing that they're lying by fact-check. I like this article because it helped me see that the polices are humans who don't always do the right thing. I have a lot question about those Politicians. Why do the Politicians keep lying while they know they're fact-checking by the people before and after the debate? This may have a huge impact to these Politicians. If those lying know by the citizen, so he or she wouldn't be a President or something else. I disagree with Adoir because he support those politician keeping lying to citizens.
I don't agree with the politicians because they lie all the time. They lie during debate and speech. We are the dumb one to listen to them, even though we know they're lying by fact-check. I like this article because it shows how the politicians lies. I do have one question for the politicians. Why do they keep on lying about what they can do? But if we found out that they lie to us, they wouldn't be elected to be president, senator, congress, etc. I wish they don't lie too much so the people can trust them. And to elect them for who they are; not the person that they lie that they are.
I, as well as others above, also believe that the Fact Check system does not meet the purpose it was intended to. There is no 100% accurate way of knowing every detail about a politicians life and if everything they are saying is true. Even if that was possible, that doesn't mean that people will base their votes on that alone. The only reason the lies politicians tell about another candidate get so big is that people loved drama and buy into nonsense. Therefore, until the people completely change that about themselves, the use of a Fact Check system is nonexistent.
Why would you lie if people can check you and see that you are lieing,This stoy mean to me ,i think the saying just because there more fact checking mean theres more truth telling. The reson i think this important cause why would you lie if people can ckeck it.when she worte this when the presidnt was getting in office.Our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians. to me this says politicians mostly lies to get people attions.why dont you think that? i dont think the immediacy make much difference. What i want to kno is what is pac , i think its some kinds of app.What is fast check? to it is a easy way to see if people was lieing.I wonder if could interrupting the politicians narratives.How trustworthy do you find fast checking groups like politico?they like them because they like seening politico lie when they kno that can find the truth.
When i read this article it makes me think harder than what I really have to.My conern about this article is, Will Fact Checks Always be ignored by Politicians, my personal opinion is that it would but then again it won't because the press know that they've been telling lies but it doesn't stop the fact of them doing it over and over again.Just because you can check it doesn't slove anything because they still continue to do what they want.I also agree with their mission because it's informing the readers, not change the behavior of politicians. They've 171,000 followers to inform the people on the behalf of the debate. This situation makes me feel stupid because they know the fact that we can check their lies yet, they still manage to tell lies to the people.
In my opinion politicians are not always true. As it is said in the article titled "Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored by Politicians" just because there is more fact checking, does not mean that there is more truth telling." This is very true, not only because a person is pointing out facts about a certain topic mean that they are saying the truth! Politicians tend to add on to things and exaggerate. Politicians are liars, and they are not always correct or speak the truth! Not all people see that though. Many people seem to always be impacted by things politicians write about. The last thing i will add is that the fact checking itself is really just old shoe - leather journalism.
I feel like fact- checking is a complete waste of time because people will believe what they want to believe whether it is true or false. They will believe whatever the candidate they go for says and, most of the time, nothing else will make them change their mind. Even though the thought of fact-checking is used to get the truth out for the citizens, I really do not think people care about what they see below a television screen or on their Twitter feed. Now and days people have their mind and heart devoted to one candidate even before any debate so whether they see facts bashing there favorited candidate it will not always make them change their mind.
I feel this article has a stronger point that just proving a politician wrong or emphasizing the fact that he/she went against their word. To me, the article is simple defending the point that people need to be informed of the "lies" politicians speak. In my opinion, there are three types of voters in the United States. There is the responsible one, who researches their facts before going to the voting booth. There is the average one who simply hears the debate and/or social chatter and is decided at that point. Finally, there is the voter who only enters the booth with their vote towards the candidate that was not a former President. For example, in the 2012 election of Obama VS. Romney people may have voted for Romney because they were unhappy with a previous action Obama did or did not take in his first term of presidency. Fact checkers are investigating whether or not the candidates are dishonest and I applaud them for this. Many people are unsupplied with the information they should have to make an intelligent vote. One person's research may go down the drain due to the lack of responsibility of a voter to one's country and its people.
In the article I learned that politicians do not always tell the truth. They just say anything to make themselves look worthy of winning. I think no matter what fact checking will be ignored. A lot of people believe anything the media says. Just because you read something doesn't mean there is truth to it. People should realize not to trust the media so much. Even the public will investigate everything politicians have to say, they will continue to lie. "Just because there's more fact checking, doesn't mean there's more truth telling."
"Just because there's more fact checking doesn't mean there's more truth telling." People believe politicians even if they are lying. This is interesting because the truth will be reviled sooner or later. However, people like what they hear from politics so they believe it. I don't think people use fact-checking because they already have their mind all into what politicians say.
This article relates to the recent election "Obama vs. Romney." People already had their mind set up to one candidate through their statements. Although it caused a revolution between the republicans & democrats.
Adair responded via email: " We already provide instant information during debates through our Twitter feed, wich has 171,000 followers. And during debates, we post a Twitter widget on our site so people can get up-to-the-minute links to related fact-checks. The truth eventually will come out. Although it can take a while to get out to the public. People use Twitter & other social networks to state their facts & opinions about all this. As it says they use Twitter during elections and debates. However, people like what they hear from candidates so it doesn't really matter to them. Their choices are made.
I found this article extremely interesting because I never knew facts were actually checked. Another thing that caught my attention is that this was the first presidential election that was seriously fact checked. " The most fact checked presidential election in history," stated in this article shows how important fact checking is because of how intense things can become in debates.
This article informed how important it is to fact check statements because not everything politicians say is true. Nevertheless, it also shows how much politicians have to know and be accurate about things they say. Just imagine having to know the exact numbers and statistics about certain things during a debate. It's a huge challenge.
Overall this article has opened up my mind to lots of things because it implies how important fact checking is. Fact checking is something that should always be done, especially when it's something that causes controversies.
In "Will fact checks always be ignored by politicians" one quote that kinda stuck out with have to be how politicians seem to live a "life beyond consequences." By what I read it seems this means that politicians believe that it didn't matter that what they said wasn't true as long as it hurt their opposition. I'm sure that politicians actually do things like try to discredit their opponent. It helps them obtain their goal of being elected so it perfectly logical for them to do just about anything short of criminal activity to accomplish this goal. Another quote that further supported this would be "our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians." This quote shows how its perfectly acceptable what politicians do and its up to us, as the readers, to find the truth and make a choice. These two quotes show us a little about what a politicians life is like and how cunning they have to be. In my opinion this is a good thing because a politician how wins is the most clever and the one who would be best suited for upholding his position as our representative. The one who is able to fight for the people's interest and is able to make the hard decisions.
In these articles they reflect on secrets of most successful college students and the big arguement about will fact checks always be ignored by politicians. They have many sources about secrets of most successful college students. One of the main ones is a book wrote by educater/historian Ken Bain,"What The Best College Students Do?" In my point of view i think the book let you know its not where you go its what you do in college. They have there type of learners-- surface, who do as little as possible to get by; strategic, who aim for top grades rather than true understanding, and finally deep learner, who leave college with a real, rich education. In the article one thing that stood out was the quote " Pursue Passion, Not A's", for that being said it means grades are important in high school but college is all about curiosity, interest, and fascination. Another thing is getting comfortable with failure because improvisation is a great educater when it comes to failing and there's no way you are going to get it right every time.
Secondly, will fact checks always be ignored by politicians? This was a major arguement because just because there's more fact checking, doesn't means there more truth telling so why lie. David Carr declared that journalistic efforts to set the record straight during"the most fact-checked election in history" didn't work, which Bill Adair says Carr misfired. Adair quoted " Our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians," I think they need to pay attention and go into details more. I also think there more effective ways fact checking could interrupt the politicians narratives but they can be telling lies. A good thing about this arguement is they let alot of people know whats going on through twitter feeds, which has 171,000 followers. But over all I think "To judge credibility, the fact-checkers must be regarded as credible judges" is a great idea. But,"Each time they are pulled into a scuffle with politicians, they can look more like political actors to the public--an assumption that especially benefits those politicians who lie with the greatest abondon."
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.