Published on August 10, 2024, 12:31 am

Donald Trump, former United States President, recently held a carefully conducted press conference answering queries from assembled news reporters and tackling issues head-on in typical Trump fashion – a characteristic for which he is widely renowned. Things took an intriguing turn when the New York Times decided to employ a group of fact-checkers to examine and cross-verify Trump’s numerous declarations. This approach is noteworthy given the lack of such rigorous scrutiny towards other political figures on similar occasions.

When one recalls the public introduction of Tim Walz recently riddled with multiple inaccuracies, it was near impossible to spot any established groups carrying out a detailed analysis. Moreover, it’s not uncommon for these fact-checkers to misinterpret and occasionally skew facts based on their findings —particularly when it involves Donald Trump. It seems that accuracy often takes the backseat when some media outlets are eager to label Mr.Trump dishonest.

The controversy surrounding Kamala Harris in relation to her role within border control continues undeterred. Many argue that she wasn’t overseeing border control but was designated as a diplomat involved with three Central American countries majorly contributing to the immigration crisis. However, ever since her assignment took place there have been four times as many arrivals—an undeniable failure.

In another instance involving fact-checking nuances, we saw judgements passed on comments checked by these ‘fact examiners’. These comments were deemed accurate but later on more factors were included in order to cloud interpretations and alter outcomes—often requiring corrections.

Interestingly when facts are misrepresented by these fact-checkers themselves, this is seen merely as something ‘misstated,’ whereas when Mr.Trump gets it wrong they say he lies –an evident bias in approach.

The narrative around potential gun control laws also caught significant attention. It was stipulated that Ms.Harris has indicated support for a “mandatory buyback program”, however this important detail seemed conveniently overlooked by some reports.

Another topic stirring debate revolves around gas prices. Despite minor confusion over units of volume (whether “barrels” or “gallons”), it is an undeniable reality that gas prices were lower under Trump’s administration and have starkly increased under President Biden.

Biden’s proposal to phase out all gas-powered vehicle sales by 2035 also caught mass attention. Technically, nobody will be obliged to buy an electric vehicle—similarly as how no one’s currently mandated to purchase a gas-run car. However, looking at it practically, if you’re seeking a new car post-2035, it will certainly have to run on electricity.

Lastly, the discussion around late-term abortions reaches fever pitch when introducing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz into the equation. He expanded abortion services in his state by reducing restrictions dramatically,resulting in several instances of non-viable babies being allowed to die after failed late-term abortions. The State Health Department of Minnesota reported over 150 cases where late-term abortions took place during the ninth month, surpassing viability stage.

In conclusion,it’s disappointing but not surprising that journalists acting as fact-checkers often manipulate the truth based on who made the comment being verified and their partisan alliances –which indeed defeats their purpose altogether.The job of fact-checkers need not be one solely of clarification—but must also involve being impartial arbiters free from political bias

If there’s anything we can count on while keeping up with real news from trusted sources imbued with a Christian worldview—it’s that this will invariably spark conversations and debates among citizens,eager for fair reporting and unbiased facts.