Who cares what Full Fact thinks?
"Bad information ruins lives", claims the fact-checking organisation
On Friday Full Fact - a self-described âteam of independent fact checkers and campaigners who find, expose and counter the harm [bad information] doesâ - fact-checked Richard Tice, posting on X:
âReform UK deputy leader @TiceRichard claimed âthis Labour government has allowed the biggest influx of migrants in British historyâ.
âHeâs not explained what that claimâs based on, but neither we nor the Migration Observatory can find data to support it.â
Whether Tice is right or wrong isnât really the point of this article.
The point is: who cares what Full Fact thinks?
Full Fact, like BBC Verify, wants us to think theyâre the Batman of âInformationâ, saving citizens lives from baddies trying to fry their brains with Andrew Tate videos.
Quite what qualifies Full Fact to arbitrate on âtruthâ is anyoneâs guess.
Take a look at one of the profiles of its âfact checkersâ, Hannah Smith, whose qualifications include writing for UNILAD:
Letâs just take a quick look at UNILAD to see what sort of expertise Hannah Smith might have acquired thereâŚ
Then thereâs Full Factâs CEO Chris Morris, who âwas the BBCâs first dedicated fact checker on air and online, pioneering fact checking on mainstream outlets through his development and leadership of BBC Reality Checkâ.
Nowadays, in addition to arbitrating the truth, he sits on the âCommission into Countering Online Conspiracies in Schoolsâ:
Another of the Full Fact team âworked freelance as a feature writer for the Guardian, Prospect, the New Scientist and others, making maps of immigration, explaining citizensâ assemblies and debunking superfoods.â
Can you imagine having to make conversation with these people at, say, a BBQ?
âWhat do I do for a living? Well, I make maps of immigration, explain citizensâ assemblies and debunk superfoodsâ.
âYah, so I think education on conspiracy belief, misinformation and disinformation should begin in primary schoolâ.
GOD HELP US ALL!
The most interesting thing about Full Fact, though, is its funders.
Full Fact explains that âfunders have no input into our editorial content or decision makingâ, but you have to wonder whatâs in it for these organisations?
Whatâs in it for The Tides Foundation, which (incidentally) gets enormous amounts in funding from George Sorosâs Open Society Foundations?
And why is Meta (formerly Facebook) paying for for disinformation services, as well as The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (another Quaker foundation)?
To add, Full Fact doesnât receive taxpayer fundingâŚ
⌠but it sure is an expensive business telling Reform MPs off!
More:
Just in case people don't know, Tides Foundation is a DAF (Donor-Advised Fund). A DAF is a specialist charity that provides donors with savings/investment accounts which can only be used for charitable giving. A DAF serves several purposes:
1) enabling tax-deductible charitable giving to a foreign charity, which is what seems to be happening here with the Google donation. The DAF does due diligence on the foreign charity and approves it for tax-deductible giving.
2) providing for anonymous donations to charity, if desired (Google is not being anonymous here)
3) managing charitable giving tax-efficiently across financial years. If you have a good year, you can give a lump sum tax-efficiently to the DAF in that year, and then make donations from your DAF account to charities at your leisure.
What DOES qualify them to adjudicate the truth ?!! Is it their documented experiential deficit ? Is it their documented math skills deficit ? Is it the fact they attended an economics 101 class at uni ? Is it the âits all about meâ attitude learned throughout their schooling ? No ? What then qualifies them to judge ?