Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-06-29 23:42:08 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 7A63477800A5E7FF15E0EF05DE46732F68D97DD073108E8C6E1AB883B6EAD749
Participant Details

Original Note:

The claim that Hutchinson's testimony was invalid because it is 'hearsay' is both misleading and untrue on the face of it. The testimony would stand in a court (the salient parts are not hearsay and the whole of it would be admissible). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jim-jordan-attorney-hearsay-twitter_n_62bbb0dde4b0187add1983f4

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1542189624675770368
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 7A63477800A5E7FF15E0EF05DE46732F68D97DD073108E8C6E1AB883B6EAD749
  • createdAtMillis - 1656546128479
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 15421896246757703687A63477800A5E7FF15E0EF05DE46732F68D97DD073108E8C6E1AB883B6EAD749