this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023

0 points (50.0% liked)

DebunkThis

1081 readers

1 users here now

Debunking pseudoscience, myths, and spurious hogwash since 2010.

We are an evidence-based Reddit/Lemmy community dedicated to taking an objective look at questionable theories, dodgy news sources, bold-faced claims, and suspicious studies.

Community Rules:

Posting

Title formatting on all posts should be "Debunk This: [main claim]"

Example: "Debunk This: Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay."

All posts must include at least one source and one to three specific claims to be debunked, so commenters know exactly what to investigate.

Example: "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"

NSFW/NSFL content is not allowed.

Commenting

Always try to back up your comments with linked sources. Just saying "this is untrue" isn't all that helpful without facts to support it.

Standard community rules apply regarding spam, self-promotion, personal attacks and hate speech, etc.

Links

Suggested Fediverse Communities

• RFK Jr. Watch @lemm.ee - Discuss misinformation being spread by antivaxxer politician, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
• Skeptic @lemmy.world - Discuss pseudoscience, quackery, and bald-faced BS
• Skeptic @kbin.social - The above, just on Kbin
• Science Communication @mander.xyz - Discuss science literacy and media reporting

Useful Resources

• Common examples of misleading graphs - How to spot dodgy infographics
• Metabunk.org - a message board dedicated to debunking popular conspiracies
• Media Bias / Fact Check - Great resource for current news fact checking + checking a source's political bias
• Science Based Medicine - A scientific look at current issues and controversies
• Deplatform Disease - A medical blog that specifically counters anti-COVID-vaccine claims
• Respectful Insolence - David Gorsky's blog on antivax shenanigans, politics, and pseudoscience

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kabe

[email protected]

Debunk This: The Council On Foreign Relations is a shadowy cabal that decides US foreign policy (swprs.org)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Candelestine to c/debunkthis

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

n/t

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kabe 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm no expert on the Council of Foreign Relations, but this article seems to be mostly factual. Your characterization of it as a "shadowy cabal" is much stronger than any claim made in the actual article except perhaps the line right at the end that reads

It was not until the 2016 election that the Council couldn’t, apparently, prevail.

Implying, of course, that Trump was someone whom the group couldn't (allegedly, at least) influence.

So, as to the claim that the group is "shadowy", I would say is provably incorrect, seeing as they have a publicly accessible website and even offer membership applications.

As to the extent that they decide US Foreign policy, well that's a little harder to quantity. Washington has many powerful think-tanks that influence both sides of the political spectrum to varying degrees. The fact that many of the members of these organizations own, or partly own, media conglomerates is also a matter of fact.

[–] Candelestine 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"In 2008, CFR member John McCain lost against CFR candidate of choice, Barack Obama" didn't also catch your eye? No source is cited, nor did some quick googling I did find any evidence. My googlefu is not the best, though.

Then Noam Chomsky is cited as a reputable source for commentary on journalism? He's a linguistics professor.

Those both stood out glaringly to me in my first reading.

[–] kabe 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“In 2008, CFR member John McCain lost against CFR candidate of choice, Barack Obama” didn’t also catch your eye? No source is cited, nor did some quick googling I did find any evidence. My googlefu is not the best, though.

Yeah, that's definitely a citation needed moment. All I could find regarding who the CFR endorsed in 2008 were right-wing conspiracy blogs and YouTube videos that contained only insinuations rather than provable facts.

Then Noam Chomsky is cited as a reputable source for commentary on journalism? He’s a linguistics professor.

Chomsky is also a well-regarded intellectual who co-authored the book Manufacturing Consent, which remains a highly influential text on the media and the military-industrial complex even today. His politics clearly lean towards the libertarian socialist/anarchist end of the spectrum, though, so of course he has his critics and detractors.

[–] Candelestine 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thoughts on this Dutch Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics they cite?

edit: Also been digging into this Swiss Policy Research group, and they've actually got a page on Meda Bias/Fact Check. Not sure why I didn't check sooner.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

[–] kabe 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I haven't heard of it before, but it seems to be a pretty stereotypical, right-libertarian site with pretensions of being a respectable organization even though it is apparently run by one guy with some highly questionable political views.

Content warning: blatant racism

ISGP's charming sidebar

I haven't objectively examined the accuracy of the reporting on this site, but my hunch is that it would be pretty low.