How a Major Media Outlet Dishonestly Attempted to 'Fact Check' My Article on Dr.Fauci and Masks

Unsurprisingly, it's filled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations

“Fact checking” has become one of the most insidious contributors to misinformation in modern society.

“Fact checkers” are able to utilize the veneer of credibility offered by media companies that employ them. They view themselves as the sole arbiters of truth, due in large part to their acceptance and promotion by social media tech companies.

Facebook and other organizations hire “fact checkers” for one purpose: to determine any criticism they deem as unacceptable to be declared invalid by outside parties intent on censorship.

Censorship has disturbingly been allowed to increase unabated, and not merely with the removal or deletion of information, but also in how stories and “truth” are framed and shared.

“Fact checking” generates partisanship, bias and preferential narratives by prioritizing ‘facts’ as seen through the lens of those nameless censors conducting the “checks.”

And unsurprisingly, they usually act as defense for those who share their ideology, regardless where the facts or truth actually lie.

This recently became a personal issue, as one of my articles was the basis for a “fact check” from a major media organization. It’s a dishonest, untruthful effort designed to allow those who accept misinformation to retain their unjustified sense of self importance.

It’s also instructive, as it illustrates how utterly contemptible this practice is with an example we’re personally connected to.

I’m referring to my most recent article posted on April 25th here on Substack, which included, in extremely thorough detail, a lengthy profile on Dr. Anthony Fauci in The New York Times.

In the profile, Fauci made several remarks that undoubtedly served to undercut his own messaging on masks over the past several years.

The article I wrote, clocking in at over 2,000 words, is a long, detailed piece which features a significant number of quotes from Fauci, including evidence and data confirming the connotations behind his statements.

Evidently, it was picked up by someone with a sizable following on Instagram, who very kindly shared the article.

That brought it to the attention of a website called AFP Fact Check, which is described as Facebook’s “most expansive global third-party fact-checking partner.”

They claim on their website that “Fighting misinformation requires thorough verification and an immediate response.”

They advertise their services to potential clients with the ability to “offer your audience a meaningful response to misinformation in an informative format.”

AFP Fact Check is no different from any number of so called “fact checking” outlets. They advertise a one-stop shop for organizations that desire to step back, put their hands up while censoring, and appeal to the credibility of unknown, heavily biased third parties.

Sure enough, they jumped to attention after my article was posted, quickly presenting one of their “fact checks” which included a screenshot of an Instagram post of my article, with a helpful “X” plastered over it, while blurring out my name in the process.

The article is a masterclass in the modern art of inaccuracy, and I thought it worthwhile to address its claims and break down how those checkers work to delegitimize information that contradicts their political beliefs.

They began by identifying that the dangerous spreaders of misinformation belong to the bad guys team.

Similar posts spread elsewhere on Instagram and other platforms, amplified by radio host Clay Travis, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly and far-right commentator Ian Miles Cheong.

Megyn Kelly is evidently not an independent minded person capable of assessing information and quotes for herself, she’s merely a “former Fox News host.”

Ian Miles Cheong is a “far-right commentator,” a label somehow never applied to “far-left” media commentators like Brian Stelter or Oliver Darcy or Glenn Kessler, or any number of television hosts.

Elon Musk is also now a frequent promoter of misinformation, they declare, making him one of Team Bad Guys.

Now that they’ve identified their opponents, they go to work.

“But the posts take Fauci's comments to the New York Times Magazine columnist David Wallace-Wells out of context, omitting part of his response to a question about masking.”

There are two important points here to make about this claim.

One of which is that my original Substack post was for paid subscribers only. Meaning that only someone who signed up to read it was able to see the entire, 2,000 word article.

No one from AFP fact check signed up for a paid subscription to this site.

They never read it.

If they had, they’d have seen that I present the entire, full context quote from Dr. Fauci.

In fact, not only did I present his quote in full, but I presented the entire question that led up to it as well.

Here is a screenshot from the article, which anyone is able to read as a subscriber.

Their “fact check” relies on a claim of missing context. But they couldn’t have seen the context because they never signed up to read it. And had they read it, they’d have seen that the context was presented as thoroughly as it possibly could be.

---

It Gets Worse

Their next desperate defense claims that Fauci never specifically referenced policy.

The doctor never mentioned mask mandates.

But it’s the height of intellectual dishonesty to make such an absurd distinction. If masks don’t work at a population level, mask mandates quite literally can’t work.

If there is little to no effect from masking in a broad population setting, that doesn’t change regardless of public policy.

They then proceed to inaccurately frame the Bangladesh mask study referenced in Fauci’s article, which was one of a number of studies included in the recent Cochrane evidence review.

That Cochrane review was unequivocal, stating that there is no high quality evidence showing that mask wearing reduces the spread of respiratory viruses.

It is an inarguable conclusion that AFP doesn’t approve of, so they lied about it, misrepresenting the response.

The study was one of several included in a January 2023 review by Cochrane, a British nonprofit that summarizes the results of medical research. The paper was misrepresented online by social media users who claimed it determined masks were ineffective.

"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation," Karla Soares-Weiser, the organization's editor-in-chief, said in a March 2023 press statement.

Karla Soares-Weiser did not speak for the authors of the study.

She misrepresented their findings out of partisan political necessity, and her statement was thoroughly denounced by the study authors, despite being used by CDC director Rochelle Walensky.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Misleads on Masks Yet Again

Had this “fact check” provided the full context, it would have mentioned that disagreement and the wording of the Cochrane Review.

But it didn’t. Because the full context would have proven them wrong. Again.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the statements Fauci made during the interview and the level of efficacy (or lack thereof), that he specifically highlighted.

If masks are not effective at a population level, they are not effective as a public health intervention. That directly contradicts what Fauci, the CDC and others told politicians and individuals over the course of the pandemic.

And it lines up with what years of data and evidence have shown regarding masks.

Whether or not the Cochrane Review’s editor disagrees is entirely irrelevant. But the “fact checker” clearly has no background in or awareness of the facts he’s supposed to be checking.

---

The Final Blow Of Stupidity

One might assume that “fact checkers” would know better than to submit logical fallacies and unscientific “research” as “proof.”

But you’d be wrong.

The article closes with an appeal to the CDC’s authority.

A February 2022 report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (archived here) found persistent use of a mask in indoor public settings was associated with lower chances of contracting Covid-19. The agency recommends masks in certain situations, including for people at high risk of serious Covid-19 illness or in places where the virus is spreading widely.

As any intellectually rigorous person must know by now, simply because the CDC states something is true, does not make it true.

That is, quite literally, the definition of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

The CDC has made, and continues to make, horrendous mistakes and has been caught repeatedly getting important information wrong about any number of pandemic-related issues.

But what’s most offensive about this paragraph is that the one CDC “study” referenced contained a result that is not statistically significant.

As part of a supposed “fact check” claiming that masks work, AFP Fact Check referenced one of the CDC’s most embarrassing lies: the claim that a result that had no statistical significance was proof of the efficacy of cloth masks at protecting against COVID infection.

It’s a study so atrocious that I was only one of many to dissect its many disastrous misrepresentations over a year ago.

And this is what they claim as proof that masks are effective.

It’s the height of unimaginably shoddy work.

There is no excuse for this level of inaccuracy to be presented as an authoritative “fact check” considering the myriad of issues.

Not to mention that the entire context of Fauci’s answer is also purposeful misinformation. High quality masks don’t work either.

This “fact check” was used by Facebook to censor references to my story or others like it, covering Fauci’s answer. And it shows the danger of allowing these biased, partisan, incompetent organizations to launder their opinions under the guise of authoritative information.

They misrepresented my article, got important details wrong, used logical fallacies to make “arguments,” and referenced an atrocious piece of “science” that was widely debunked.

This is the danger of the modern “fact checking” industrial complex. It’s a monumental failure, designed to promote an agenda and not to inform the public.

I guess in that sense, it’s a near-perfect extension of the modern media.

Canva Pro is the design software that makes design simple, convenient, and reliable. Create what you need in no time! Jam-packed with time-saving tools that make anyone look like a professional designer.