https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/who-fact-checks-the-fact-checkers-research/

“‘Fact-checking’ fact checkers: A data-driven approach,” a 22-page October research article from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, examined practices of U.S. fact-checking organizations Snopes, PolitiFact and Logically, along with The Australian Associated Press.

Sian Lee, Aiping Xiong, Harseung Seo and Dongwon Lee of Penn State University’s College of Information Sciences and Technology did the peer-reviewed research.

The Penn State researchers found U.S. fact-checking spikes during major news events. In recent years, that was during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. Further, the researchers said, misinformation’s spread can mislead and harm people and society.

The researchers examined 11,639 fact-checking articles from Snopes and 10,710 from PolitiFact from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2022. They found Snopes checked more “real claims” — claims that rate true or mostly true — with 28.7% versus 11% for PolitiFact.

Looking widely, the researchers found high agreement when Snopes and PolitiFact probed the same information. Of 749 matching claims (examining the same information), 521 received identical ratings and 228 (30.4%) had diverging ratings. But, the researchers found nuances caused nearly all of these divergent verdicts — granularity of ratings (Snopes and PolitiFact scales differ slightly); differences in focus; differences in fact-checked information and the different timing of the fact-checks.

Adjusting for these systematic discrepancies, Penn State’s researchers found just one conflicting rating among the 749 matching claims.

While yes, it’s most likely not a significant factor in the drop in crime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis#%3A~%3Atext%3DA_2007_report_published_by%2C%25_decline_in_violent_crime".?wprov=sfla1

Systematic reviews / meta-analysis

The first meta-analysis of the lead-crime hypothesis was published in 2022. “The Lead-Crime Hypothesis: A Meta-Analysis”, authored by Anthony Higney, Nick Hanley, and Mirko Moro consolidates findings of 24 studies on the subject. It found that there is substantial evidence linking lead exposure to a heightened risk of criminal behavior, particularly violent crimes. This aligns with earlier research suggesting lead exposure may foster impulsive and aggressive tendencies, potential precursors to violent offenses. The study concluded that, while a correlation between declining lead pollution and declining criminality is supported by research, it is likely not a significant factor in reduced crime rates, and that the link is generally overstated in lead-crime literature.

The study’s implications point towards the potential benefits of reducing lead exposure to decrease crime rates. Such reductions could be achieved through initiatives like removing lead from products like gasoline and paint, water pipes and enhancing lead abatement measures in schools and residences.

Weird, appears the article is no longer up. Apologies.

Edit: it has returned.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Citation needed

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

I’m assuming that’s a “no” because you can’t defend your claim with reliable sources.

Thank you for playing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[citation needed]

Wanna try the “padding” thing again?

In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.