The bias against fact checking websites. I question the motive of powerful people or institutions that tell those under their influence to not trust fact checking websites because of an alleged systematic bias within those sites. I further question the motive of the aforementioned people and institutions when they say trust only sources that align with the powerful persons or institutions ideology. This is how Group think happens, an echo-chamber riddled with confirmation bias. Tactics used to discredit fact checking websites. 1) The posting of opinion pieces that make claims of bias in a website without offering any supporting evidence. The claim of bias is argued as a fact but the alleged fact is not backed by any objective source citation. If we allow this type of claim then all claims become true just because we say they are. Example: Claiming to have an infinite IQ is not proof of an infinite IQ. Claims do not automatically = fact. Many claims are baseless thus the need to practice due diligence when vetting a claim. 2) Selecting a small number of contested fact checks and using them as evidence of a systematic bias. Pointing out where one thinks the fact check sites got it wrong to the exclusion of where they get it right is called cherry picking. Cherry picking is a form of confirmation bias where we shine a light upon only that which supports a predetermined conclusion. We do not point out where they got it right because that would work against our claim. 3) Judging a fact checking website based upon who owns it and the political views of the contributors. It is possible to hold certain ideological views yet suspend them when fact checking. To argue that a website owned by a person who holds different ideological views is biased but then trust a website owned by a person that espouses ideological views that you adhere to is not only biased, but hypocritical too. We are all a slave to our bias to varying degrees. While it is difficult, it is possible to set aside ones bias when reviewing data that does not bode well for ones preconceived conclusions. Sadly it is also human nature for us to think that we are being objective when in reality we are blinded by our bias. Because of this we tend to see our bias in retrospect rather than in real time. Thoughts?