This is a look at Breitbart.com's plan to compete with the Facebook fact-checkers. Using an elite search engine of the free-press to ensure that their readers are not deluged with uncomfortable (fake) news or facts, they will promote their philosophy which to readers who trust them, is as good--or better than--the so-called Truth.
We spoke with a person (who asked to remain anonymous) in charge of the effort.
RealTrueNews: Can you tell us why you think you're in a position to best identify fake-news?
Breitbart Fact-Checker: There's really no such thing as fake news. That's a liberal invention. There's just news people don't want to hear.
RTN: Wait a minute--nothing is fake?
BFC: Right. Nothing is provably fake. Everything you assume is true is just your bias talking.
RTN: Does--uhm--does the moon orbit the earth?
BFC: How would I know?
RTN: Uh . . . we sent guys up there. Right? Video and stuff?
BFC: That can be faked, of course. I haven't gone myself. How would I know. You just believe it because you were told to.
RTN: Okay--Did Trump win the popular vote?
BFC: Of course he did.
RTN: That's not what the numbers say.
BFC: Whose numbers? What numbers??
RTN: Uh--the national election numbers.
BFC: Right--you're such a stooge. Did they take out all the illegal votes? How about the millions of Trump votes that liberals destroyed? Huh? Did the numbers include those?
RTN: There's no evidence for any of that.
BFC: See? You don't get it. If one story makes me feel good, it's true. If it makes me feel bad, it's false. The idea that Trump won the national vote feels bad to you--so you think it's false. It feels good to me--so it's true.
RTN: But--no, wait. If I feel bad that objects all fall at the same rate they still fall at the same rate. Don't they?
BFC: You're talking about physics. Right? I'm talking about real-life. Our readers don't care about some elite science eggheaded nonsense. They want the truth--and they know the truth because it feels right. That's why Hillary lost--because she didn't feel right so nothing she said was true.
RTN: Wait, wait, wait--Hillary certainly lied about her emails but she--
BFC: Of course. See? You prove my point!
RTN: But when she talked about policy or events she had the best record of any--
BFC: None of those policies or events felt good. So, no, she didn't have a good record. What feels good to our readers was "She lies." That meant the fact-checkers giving her high scores for honesty were lying. It's so simple that it's complex for you.
RTN: So you're saying your readers don't actually want fact checking. They just want validation? Confirmation?
BFC: Our readers can't handle what you call fact-checking, which is just taking a liberal bias and calling it the truth. When you start trying to make these so-called fact-based arguments, you find that one side usually has no choice but to refute the "facts."
RTN: If, uh, if that's true then maybe it's because one side is wrong about the facts?
BFC: Sure. If I'm wrong about the facts--say, about Global Warming--then I have no choice but to declare the whole thing a warmist conspiracy of lies. That's real fact-checking.
RTN: But--but--wait a minute--you're saying it isn't on the basis of counter-evidence? It's just--no--I don't get it. What are you saying here?
BFC: I'm saying people are tired of being called racist when there's an argument or position out there that could make them not-racist. People are tired of being called foolish for not believing that Obama is a Muslim or that Hillary ordered a stand-down at Benghazi--
RTN: But there's no evidence that--I mean, the Benghazi commission found that she didn't--
BFC: Don't you see? If I feel better thinking she was more responsible for killing those soldiers than the terrorists--or that she lied about it in private conversations with the families to try to save Barack Obama's campaign then I don't have to feel bad about hating her. I'm justified. It feels good--so it's true. That's what we're providing here.