Is That a Fact?

An offbeat foray into the shady art of fact-checking

When my mom was alive, she had an endearing *I’m being kind* habit of sending me every FW: FW: FW: email that landed in her inbox. “Abandoned Bottles May Be Drano ‘Bottle Bombs.’” “Cut Onions Cause More Food Poisoning Than Spoiled Mayonnaise.” “Zombie Virus Responsible for Florida Cannibal Attack.” “KFC Giving Away Free Popcorn Chicken!”

Nigerian princes were practically banging down the poor woman’s door.

Back then, I would simply pop the subject line into the Snopes search bar and reply with the link debunking the urban legend du jour and go back to searching for the perfect background tune for my MySpace page. After all, if Snopes gave something the definitive FALSE rating, the matter was settled. No need to do one’s own tiresome research; that’s what Snopes was for.

(In Mom’s defense, the free popcorn chicken thing was actually legit. Also coincidentally, hand-to-heart my favorite background tune was Chicken Fried by Zac Brown. But I digress.)

It wasn’t until COVID unleashed its army of dubious “fact-checkers” that I realized trusting Snopes was like believing a frosting-smeared toddler that his stuffed hamster ate the missing cake. (And this epiphany came even before the OG Gatekeeper of Truth was busted for plagiarism, I’ll proudly point out.)   

Sadly, I suspect an overwhelming majority of people today bear a terrifying resemblance to turn-of-this-century, millennial Jenna. “This was already debunked by USA Today,” they gloat on every meant-to-enlighten post, parroting the bright red banner at the bottom of it (because obviously questioning things is totally 2018 and doing your own research is nothing but the butt of every bad COVID joke).

By this point, we know unequivocally that the media is in bed with our patently corrupt government, so trusting their verdict on a thing’s veracity is like buying, “Local Fox Says Dozens of Hens Mauled Themselves to Death Last Night!”

If one even bothers to click the aforementioned banner—after being forced to tap the button that equates to official-sounding folks say this information is categorically not true but I’m a Q-believer and also the president of Alex Jones’s fan club and I would like to see it anyway—you’re often treated to a confusing, contradictory, hieroglyphic, or just plain preposterous explanation as to how the official ruling was reached.

Here are but a few examples:

Logically speaking, a question cannot be false (or true). But apparently this one is.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Internet can literally turn any innocuous comment into fisticuffs. (Anyone on earth: “What time is it?” The Internet: “Liar!”)

You think that’s air you’re breathing? False. Although if you take the time to do your own research look up the Croatian explanation, the translation is a bit… incongruous.

So… NASA has or hasn’t admitted to painting the sky with chemtrails? Maybe they haven’t not admitted it. Or they admitted not admitting it. Who’s to say? Anyway, the conclusion is clearly FALSE—in red, which is the official color of liars—so just keep scrolling, you useless eater.

Before his tragic passing, French virologist Luc Montagnier was vociferously opposed to COVID vaccines for children in particular. Or was he? I mean, he said he was, over and over, but apparently, he didn’t really mean it. The fact-checkers say so!

It’s just too bad there’s not a website out there that could translate these confusing foreign languages for the fact-checkers. Allow me the honor (and do note the result oddly has nothing to do with buffalo or provolone):

Montagnier was the co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of HIV and the founder of the World Foundation for Medical Research and Prevention. The man knew his way around a virus. But some intern from the University of Phoenix* can recklessly employ the word hoax (sorry, bufala) in his or her review and—BOOM!—Dr. Montagnier’s facts have officially been checked. Except the fact-checker evidently didn’t also check the NIH’s very own website, where they may have found this little bit of evidence to the contrary:
*I’m guessing

But it’s a hoax, okay? And hoax means it’s FALSE. (Which I think we can all agree secretly stands for Factually Accurate with Loads of Supporting Evidence.)

I always find the “missing context” decree a curious one. In precisely what context could this hand-scribbled sign be deemed untrue, one might wonder:

Can we unvax our kids? This would be great information to have, fact-checkers! Please, elaborate!

On further inspection, it turns out they cannot. It’s not PolitiFact’s fault—that damned context is on the lam again. Context is so squirrely. But don’t worry, they put a picture of it on some milk cartons and they’ll definitely let us know when it turns up. In the meantime, carry on. Can’t you see that warning triangle is pants-on-fire-red? Shoo!

Here’s another head scratcher. The tireless, overworked fact-checkers couldn’t do us the kind favor of translating this gibberish into the most-spoken language on the planet? Without a handy Cyrillic keyboard, I couldn’t even pop this one into Google translate.

Does it even matter though? The fact-checker’s actual name is HOAXES—plural—so obviously she’s an expert on such matters, making this clearly a legitimate RED-HOT-FALSE judgment call that should not be questioned. The Ministry of Truth has spoken. Please return to your seats.

Sometimes, fact-checkers don’t even have to bother explaining why something is a raging lie. Like when they can just call the alleged liar a conspiracy theorist instead! There, fixed it.

Sure, it’s a known fact that Rockefeller was instrumental in the creation of the World Health Organization. And fine, it’s also no secret the beloved philanthropist happened to be super into eugenics. But EVERYTHING ELSE this lady says, which is essentially that invading a person’s body with poison is destructive to the immune system, is not to be believed for a skinny minute.

Again, I’m happy to translate:

For the last time, the globalist eugenicists do not want to exterminate children! It’s an officially checked fact. How dare you even suggest such a thing, you vile heathen.

Here’s the problem with trying to pin down facts: like fads, they have a quirky habit of changing overnight. Just look at all the wacky erstwhile “conspiracy theories”—from masks that don’t do diddly to the menstrual irregularities that couldn’t possibly be caused by the jabs but indubitably are—that are now allowed to walk around freely in public. And just like nobody sends out a press release when skinny jeans slink out of style and bell bottoms come boogieing back in, nobody is keeping a scorecard you can simply reference for the most updated pandemic facts. (Why is nobody keeping a scorecard of the most updated pandemic facts? Oh wait, that’s supposed to be the CDC hahahahaha never mind.) Out in the actual world, it’s just a whole lot of “Well, WaPo said this,” and “FactCheck.org said that,” and the result is mass confusion—which I suspect has been the goal all along.  

Remember when they released the now-infamous Dirty Dozen list of the Internet’s top “misinformation superspreaders” (thanks for the tips on who to follow for actual facts, ya filthy propaganda peddlers!)? Now when I see that grayed out “false information” box, my first thought is, oooh, another certainty that’s inconvenient to the narrative they’re trying to discredit! It’s practically a guarantee of truth. Especially if it involves vaccine injuries, natural remedies, or whether or not Michelle Obama is in fact a man.

On that note, I’ll just leave a link to this video of the former FLOTUS’s curiously swinging thing right here so you can decide for yourself.  

And finally, since there seems to be an abundance of crazy claims floating around out there in the metaverse, I thought I’d do a little fact-checking of my own for you. You know, set the record straight. You’re welcome (and feel free to add your own in the comments).

“Drunk co-ed swears she did not like her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend’s Instagram post from 2018.”

Jenna’s Rating: 100% FALSE

More information: Oh she liked it, and then she told everyone she knew she did it, and then she texted the ex-boyfriend and professed her undying love before blocking him but she’s in rehab now and doing much better.

“Pot found guilty of calling the kettle black.”

Jenna’s Rating: MISSING CONTEXT (*but patently racist)

More information: Sources are unsure what the kettle called the pot first; also the kettle is in fact black, so nobody can really say until we find that missing context.

“Face sues man for cutting nose off out of spite.”

Jenna’s Rating: UNPROVEN

More information: La nariz sólo sabe lo que sabe, y el rostro seguirá siendo siempre curioso.

“Woman eats cake, finds out she still has it.”

Jenna’s Rating: MOSTLY TRUE

More information: The woman actually had two cakes, that clever minx.

As always, thanks for reading and sharing. I couldn’t do this without you. (Well, I could, but it would suck.)

Was your New Year’s resolution to read more books, too? The War on Ivermectin is available on Amazon and anywhere else kickass reading materials are sold.