Who checks the fact checkers?

THIS election cycle has seen the explosion of digital campaigning because of the pandemic. There was an unintended consequence: the rise of fake news. But the government did not appoint anyone to be fact checkers. A group of individuals and mainstream media decided to band together to counter the rise of fake news. In the process, they became thought police to all. That would have been fine if they were not biased or not supporting one candidate or the reverse, opposing one candidate. The mantra was "anyone but Marcos." Arrogating the power to control thought, they started hammering individuals with fake tags even if individuals were expressing their own opinions. Then, mass reporting became a political tool to control contrarian views. What they do not get is that elections are personal choices, and of course, it is given that people will express their opinions on personalities, events and posts. After all, Facebook is a place where opinions are posted; if it were facts, go to the books and the library, and you will see interpretations (learned opinions) of history.

One broadcaster even said, "People are entitled to their opinions, but there is one set of facts." Agree on that, but facts can also change just by looking at history. All historians bring to their work their own historical perspective. That perspective might be determined by his or her political bent or by the use of social theories in their analysis. "History is not static. It is a dynamic disciplinary process, constantly challenged and reevaluated."