Holding Paper - Snopes. Kathy Shaidle writes: //Despite the reconstituted anti-Snopes backlash, examples of that site’s willingness to debunk anti-Trump goofiness aren’t hard to find. I’m just saying that the “facts” Snopes.com and their defenders offer up as proof of their neutrality boil down to “some pieces of government paper we’ve got over here somewhere.” In other words: “Because we say so.” So pardon my skepticism. Especially now that the same side that’s been fictionalizing the official narrative for over a century—Scopes, Sacco and Vanzetti, Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, DDT, JFK, the Cleveland river fire that inspired the first Earth Day, Reagan & AIDS, Vietnam, global warming, campus rape—has seemingly developed a late-onset passion for “facts.” These same folks mock concepts like “God” and “biology” and even “truth”—unless the “truth” is oracled and arbitrated by a pair of self-anointed strangers somewhere off the PCH with (again ironically) a shaky internet connection.//

The average person would treat the possibility of this kind of thing happening as beyond imagination.

However, like rigging "fact checking," for people with an obsession - such as power - the amount of effort they put into imaging and thinking and conniving has no limit.

And you end up with this kind of effort to keep low information voters placid and tranquil.

I don't use Google for this reason. 

I use Bing.

Weaponized Fact-Checking.

Media Bias Corrupts Everything.

You suspected that "fact checkers" were rigged, now science proves it.

//Conversely, statements by Republicans were rated as entirely false about twice as often as Democratic statements – 29% false ratings for GOP statements vs. 15% false ratings for Democrats. (This includes categories labeled “false” and “pants on fire.”)

Further, the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs looked at over than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011. Their conclusion:

Current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts. In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged ‘false’ or ‘pants on fire’ over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent).

In other words, they are cherry-picking statements that are false for Republicans and true for Democrats. But maybe that’s just because Republicans lie more than Democrats right before an election? Maybe, just before an election, Republicans suddenly start to lie uncontrollably while Democrats suddenly start to tell the truth all the time?//

Weaponized fact-checking.

AP uses unreliable ideological hack to grade candidates on whether they accept his unreliable, ideological hack science.

//For anyone following the debates over climate change, the fact AP would highlight Michael Mann's opinions tells you everything you need to know. Mann's currently suing a number of conservative critics, including National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mark Steyn, and a handful of individuals for pointing out that Mann's own climate science has been far from reliable. A number of people and organizations who are neither conservative nor necessarily disagree with Mann on climate science think his lawsuit is both friviolous and an attack on free speech. Even if that weren't the case, Mann's obvious hostility and ridiculous hyperbole are discrediting as it is. Cruz's opinions on global warming mean that he knows less about science in general than a kindergartner? Please.

It's insulting that the Associated Press would use someone as obnoxious and biased as Mann as a blatant appeal to authority. In fact, when challenged on this point by The Federalist's David Harsanyi, the AP's Seth Borenstein responded with a somewhat snotty and transparently fallacious dismissal about expertise://

Yup.

Weaponized Factchecking by Democrat Operatives with Press Credentials.

It starts.