Lie busters

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Generalisations, over-simplifications, strawman fallacies, half truths and outright lies... all of this is part of any election campaign, especially in countries where negative ads are deemed a viable (and actually by far the most efficient) rhetorical tool. This election, although a bit more boring than usual, is no exclusion. But now there is something new in the equation. A small group of independent experts have turned finding the truth about the real facts behind the campaign speeches into a profession. Under the lens of the "untruth hunters" are the various statements of the candidates, seemingly "factual" claims by their supporters and critics, and also the omnipresent flood of campaign ads, both positive and negative.

Example: an Obama campaign ad. A retired worker from a steel factory tells the story how his factory had been shut down at the time Mitt Romney was at Bain Capital. The guy and his family lost their health benefits, soon after that his wife got ill, and less than a month later she died of cancer. The guy goes on to say he is not sure Romney is aware what he has caused to all those people, and suspects he does not care. There is a "small" detail missing from the video, Fact Checker later found out. Turns out at the moment the factory went bankrupt, Romney was no longer an active member of the board of the company that owned it, and besides the worker's wife died 5 years after the bankruptcy. What's more, she did have her own health insurance for quite some time after her husband was fired. The conclusion of Glenn Kessler, the author of the research, is that "this ad stretches the bounds of common sense and decency".

This kind of fact research is a new development in modern journalism, and it emerges from the fact that journalism has become more about regurgitating the politicians' talking points and perpetuating their narrative, rather than reporting the raw facts. A brief look at the 24-hour "news" networks reveals a picture of spin, bias and opinion, presented as "fair and balanced analysis". For many who truly care about this, it would seem that much of modern journalism, particularly the politically related one, has abdicated from its primary function. Which has necessitated the emergence of such phenomena like Fact Checker.

The task of these researching journalists is to uncover all sorts of un-truths, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they originate from. Like this other ad accusing Obama that for 4 years he hasn't found the time to make an official visit to Israel, a key geopolitical partner of America. But in fact only 4 out of the last 11 US presidents had visited Israel officially, as a fact-check done by Kessler reveals. Neither Reagan nor Bush Sr ever visited Israel in their capacity of head of state. But of course the ad does not mention this. When called out on that, the participant in the ad, a Jewish Democrat "Goldstein acknowledges those facts but brushes them aside. He said that because Obama initially spent so much time reaching out to the Muslim world, it was even more necessary for him to visit Israel rather than repeatedly assert that he has Israel’s back." In this case, the ad containing not a lie, but a half-truth, and skipping the other half that does not match its purposes.

The appeal of fact-checking journalism (if I may call it so) is due to the public's hunger for truth and the raw facts - a thing that is missing so much from the mainstream media. The other reason is that in their busy everyday life, people do not have enough time and opportunities to research on the politicians' statements on their own. This is why people like Kessler and his colleague Brooks Jackson have made it their job, with the help of a small staff of journalists.

Of course the next question is: who checks the fact checkers? And are they immune to political spin and bias? An important question indeed. And the answer is: no. They could either get their facts wrong, or they could fall victim to the temptations of politics. But about this - a bit further down...

All the potential risks of bias notwithstanding, ultimately, someone has to show people how to sift the truth away from the chaff. Much like Kessler's column, Jackson's project also aims to check the facts behind the political speeches. Its mission is to squeeze the truth out of the pure fabrication and falsehood, to expose the dubious claims, the self-contradictory narrative, and sometimes the outright hypocrisy, ignorance and stupidity. Because if people are supposed to vote based on such false information, then it would rather be a vote of the misinformed, not an informed choice. It's ironic that Jackson has started this project after leaving CNN, a network that claims to be all about the facts (but one which has now descended into a teenage-style super-tech worthless Twitter dump for much of its 24-hour program, for which it has duly earned a lot of mockery from media-watching comedian pundits like Stewart and Colbert).

And another irony. While the initial expectation had been that many journalists would be interested to join this work or at least use the fruits of the project, reality is quite different. Only a tiny fraction of the regular readers are journalists. The Fact Check own research indicates that the majority of its readers are ordinary people, about 10% of them teachers using the materials in the website in their classes at school or college. And then, there are of course the cynics who would never even think of voting for any other party but the one they have already chosen, regardless of any facts; but those still keep checking the Fact Checker because they want to know the truth behind the statements of their favourite leaders anyway. That's curious.

So Fact Check began work in 2003. Initially the idea was for a temporary project that would check the statements during the 2004 election campaign. 4 years later another similar project was born, Politifact. It won a Pulitzer for its work in 2008 and is presently the biggest political fact-checking institution in the US. Its founder: Bill Adair of the Tampa Bay Times.

Adair is convinced that fact-checking is indeed a viable journalistic genre on its own, and a new one at that. While in traditional journalism the reporters are practically only transmitting the politicians' statements, the likes of him research a certain subject on a deeper level and base their conclusions on the result, in a way that resembles the peer review that is part of the scientific process. In that type of journalistic work, we are not talking of journalists giving opinions, but making dispassionate conclusions based on the revealed facts - something that is very different from the traditional concept for a news media (one that is supposed to almost mechanically reproduce information).

I am inclined to agree that this is a very necessary and useful branch of journalism, as is undercover investigative journalism or whistle-blowing for example. When I was completing my studies in Journalism, I was being taught that journalists should strive not to allow the passing of false information into the public space. But how utopian that had been! Today, in the age of instant and global information technologies, such a thing is not possible... The information consumer is constantly subject to vast amounts of disinformation, rumours presented as fact, and outright fabrications, or just bullshit. And many people are susceptible to those influences, and base their worldview on them. This has lead to a situation where news journalism has lost its function of the guardian of information, and has turned into a judge about what is and what isn't truth. In reality, society can never be completely protected from disinformation, and it probably need not be. But it could at least be given the tools to sift out the chaff to find the real nuggets. And that is where fact-checking journalism steps in.

Not to mention that a journalist could technically present a fact to the audience accurately, while still infusing their spin by way of wording, or the simple selection of facts to present. It is a vast grey area where fact checking can do nothing.

Still, to make things more handy for its auditory, PolitiFact has devised a special grade scale for measuring the level of un-truth. The Truth-o-Meter, a kind of truth/lie detector that qualifies the political statements in 10 categories from "true" to "half-true" to "false". For instance, Romney's statement that 47% of Americans do not pay income tax, is qualified as "true". Exactly which segments fall into these 47% is another matter, which is subject to scrutiny from other types of journalism, and pundits from all sides have been more than eager to exercise their verbal skills to beat the subject to its complete and utter death. Meanwhile, Obama's statement that America has doubled the use of renewable energy sources has been qualified as "mostly false". The last category, "Pants on Fire", is reserved for ridiculously pathetic untruths. That is where Romney's statement falls that Obama's foreign tour after his inauguration was a round-the-world apology trip in search of forgiveness for America. In turn, the president himself is also featured in the Pants on Fire category with the ad claiming that Romney had supported a bill that would outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.

Kessler's approach of putting light on the facts is a bit different. He gives Pinocchio points, the maximum of 4 points being reserved for the most blatant untruths. Currently, Romney has a slight lead over Obama in that respect, but for most of the election campaign so far both have been pretty close. Obviously, the White House cannot be happy about all those Pinocchios, but on the other hand any exposure of Romney's untruths instantly tends to get into the campaign ads of the Democrats, so it is really a blade that cuts both ways.

Naturally, any politician would be happy whenever their opponent is being criticised for lying. But that same politician would see their grin instantly freezing on their face, the moment the spotlight is turned back on them and their rhetoric. What is important for this new type of journalism is to resist the temptation to succumb to lackey-like clientelism in favour of this political party or the other, and to find the strength to not budge to the pressure from the power elites, and more trickily, from fellow "journalists" with certain agendas.

The "lie busters" should keep working for the voters, not for the politicians. And they still do. Now that the public has taken a breath of air after both parties' conventions, the fact-checkers are bracing themselves for new serious investigations. And they will certainly be provided with a lot of fodder in the weeks before the election. The next big event for them will be the Obama v Romney and Biden v Ryan debates. And meanwhile the rest of us will be holding our fingers on the keyboards, ready to assault the Webz! =)

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Negative ads are considered an extreme act of low culture here (in the Balkans!? what a shock!) In fact I think the more extreme forms of negative ads are illegal here as far as I'm aware.

And yet, over-simplifications, strawman fallacies, half-truths and outright lies are at the basis of every candidate's campaign. It's so rampant that people have grown accustomed to it and they get shocked whenever some "cuckoo" tries to speak in essence and with facts and data.

Something like what Bill Clinton tried to do on the Democratic convention. He's not necessarily right in his positions (that depends on the POV), but at least he did a tremendous job to substantiate them. And the saddest thing is that he's looking like some kind of weird fossil from another epoch because of that.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Sounds to me like the Balkans are just behind the times. Negative Ads may be low culture or even illegal, but that doesn't stop the machine. Negative ads are effective manipulation, therefore I can't see why it would stop a campaign from utilizing this tool. It might start full throttle over night, or slowly creep into the national discourse slowly unaware. But I can't see it not happening at some point.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I think negative campaigning is mostly a typically American thing, and cultural at that. After all, mud slinging has been called "as American as Mississippi mud".

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It seems that journalism is returning to its roots in the days of yellow journalism and open hatchet pieces which relied on partisan politics over facts. Politicians rely on the Big Lie and the Little Lie both, it's an inseparable tool of the trade. Catching them in the act certainly matters, but removing lying from politics altogether belongs in the realm of utopian ideas, as it'd be impossible to do in practice. I'm also not entirely convinced of how helpful this means of going about it actually is. It's more likely to encourage the "If I did say this, it would be wrong" variety of rhetoric and obfuscation of lies to the point where they're half-truths more than anything else. But that's just me.

[marina-herriott.livejournal.com]

/Romney's statement falls that Obama's foreign tour after his inauguration was a round-the-world apology trip in search of forgiveness for America…/

“…Obama encouraged Europe to work with the United States, and admitted that the United States "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
…"I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction."
…At a speech in Cairo on relations between the U.S. and the Islamic world, Obama got very close to regretting decades-old U.S. actions in Iran… (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/31/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-began-his-presidency/)”

Is this not the Apologies but the diplomatic language? Does it mean the diplomatic language equals the lies?

Another sample:
Obama caught on mic telling Medvedev to give US 'space' on nuclear issue: Obama elaborated: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/obama-medvedev-space-nuclear)

Is it the diplomatic language or the delusion for the American people? And the Russian people?
And after such are you surprised that some parts of the world don’t trust America?
I think it’s the falsehood when the form is more important than the content of a message.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Is this not the Apologies but the diplomatic language?

No.

And after such are you surprised that some parts of the world don’t trust America?

The lack of trust has far more to do with American military operations than Obama's tour.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

The way I am reading this, he is saying "For too long Europe has distrusted America, both because Europe misunderstands America and because America has disregarded Europe. Europe uses this as an excuse for its inaction". -- It reads as criticism of Europe, more than regret for the wasted years that could have been used for something constructive on both sides. I am not noticing any apology there.

And even if there were, I would invite you to elaborate which part of the message is non-factual, and why.

As for the second statement, Obama is saying what any president running for re-election has had in their mind, but has seldom pronounced: "If I am re-elected I will have my hands untied to push my policies more boldly than now, so have some patience and we will work together more efficiently in my second term". It's a fact that has been seen in both Clinton's and Bush Jr's second terms as president. Is there something contradictory between reality and what he said?

Yes, the content of a message is very important. And it is equally important that the message should be understood properly, rather than making sensationalist exclamations like, "He said something that sounds strange, OMG is this the America we want!??!?" This doesn't even mean anything.

Apart from the America/Russia/trust issue, would you like to comment on the actual topic of this post, namely fact-checking journalism?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he should've made an "Our Way Or The Highway" tour instead.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Hello, you're jumping from one issue to another. Romney specifically talked about Obama's 2008 tour. And you're talking about events that happened this year. Are you able to stay focused?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Essentially, Obama told Medvedev he wants to postpone the negotiations for cutting the nuclear arsenal of the two countries for a time when Obama would have his whole 2nd term ahead of him, hence more room to maneuver politically. And Medvedev understood his point.

That's a flaw of 4- (or 5-) year terms. Politicians tend to make only short-term plans, for fear of doing something unpopular that would reflect on their future prospects for re-election.

I actually expect that when Obama is re-elected, the two parties in the US will finally sit on the table and do something together. Call me naive idealist, but it has happened in previous 2nd-term occasions as well.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

American journalism has been all about passing disinformation to the public since the invention of the advertiser. Of course, the Soviets had their own form of journalistic disinformation known as Pravda, which means something like "official deception" in Russian. Even honest journalists could not do their jobs if they had to check the veracity of every single detail.

As for Faux News and CNN, they are all about entertainment with a minor emphasis on information. They remind me of the way that people on a sinking ship panic as they beat each other over the head to secure a lifeboat. What goes up, must go down.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Pravda means truth in Russian.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Pravda means Truth in Russian. They may not have a Ministry of Truth, but they are close. =)

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

heh, pants on fire.

Reminds me of this rather brilliant Progressive commercial.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Heck, many journalists have made the switch, most noteably Andrea Seebrook, formerly of NPR (http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/andrea-seabrook-from-npr-to-podcasting-hoping-to-invigorate-congressional-reporting/).

In an interview with On The Media, she said she was tired of being lied to by the politicians she covered. Of course, FAIR points out (http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/08/23/politicians-lie-and-reporters-cant-report-that/) the obvious logical extension of that statement:

So if a reporter is covering politicians who are lying to her every single day, what is preventing that reporter from saying as much? Why just repeat the lies?

The crystal clear implication here is that, for whatever reason, an NPR journalist doesn't feel comfortable challenging lies and spin. It's a pretty important admission, and one that NPR listeners–and management–should think about.

Indeed.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I find a lot of humor in trusting untrustworthy media organizations to be the new arbiters of truth.

There's a reason FactCheck.org was so good, and the new ones aren't.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

They don't qualify to the criteria for Fair and Balanced (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/jon-stewart-fox-news-sarah-palin-megyn-kelly_n_485235.html), granted. ;-)

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

That's the trick, isn't it? They are trustable only when exposing the opponent's gaffes. =)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I'm genuinely interested to hear more about that reason.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

The original is usually the best because it's most genuine, that's why. It's like movies: sequels tend to be crappier than Episode 1.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Here's a fact-check for you. accusing Obama that for 4 years he hasn't found the time to make an official visit to Israel isn't a half-truth as you call it. It's a complete truth, but not a complete picture. Leaving out information that someone else feels is relevant isn't a half-truth. It's why Politifact called Romney's statement true, as you cited further down, rather than half-true.

Yes, fact-checking is what we expect journalists to do, and I think it's only natural that this would happen once people realize that those we are calling journalists aren't fulfilling this expected function. It would be nice if it would shame them into doing their job again, but I won't hold my breath.

And yes, there is always bias, because they're still people. We just need to know what the bias is so that we have a better chance of analyzing the claims and the facts for ourselves. It's people who rely on others to do their thinking for them that empower these frauds (by which I mean politicians and the current media).

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yes, fact-checking is what we expect journalists to do, and I think it's only natural that this would happen once people realize that those we are calling journalists aren't fulfilling this expected function. It would be nice if it would shame them into doing their job again, but I won't hold my breath.

Correct. Take FOX: when a network that has the pretense to be "Fair and Balanced"(tm) says things like "We provide the OTHER point of view, because there are things you wouldn't hear from the lame-stream LIBERAL media"... and then goes back to their "Fair and Balanced"(tm) mantra... Well, this sort of cognitive dissonance does indeed betray a complete lack of a sense of shame.

And yes, there is always bias, because they're still people.

Also correct. Where there are people, there is bias. And where there are people who are being paid by this political interest or the other, there is A LOT of bias.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Back when journalism had some integrity there were some editors in reputable magazines/newspapers whose job was to edit content from journalists. They would correct spelling, grammar and even delve into the claims of journalists to verify or correct them. Other publications were not so reputable. With profit as main motivation, they printed on cheaper (yellowed) newsprint and found there was more profit in telling a juicy lie then what they could be sued for.

But what you're talking about is slightly different. Political factcheck delves into the content of campaign claims to verify or correct them. Mostly to correct them.

A big problem is that false or erroneous claims will always get more press them retractions or corrections. It's a matter of money. Huge stacks of money is spent advertising false messages where virtually none is spent retracting them.

Fact-checking journalism is a polite way to not call it "Gotcha-journalism" The whole schtick is not just to point out where a candidate lies outright, but to have a laugh at every little error. If the purpose of Fact-Check was indeed to provoke the public's genuine outrage at the bullshit politicians spew, then it's failed miserably.

What pissed off the voting public recently was Romney's "47%" remark (which displayed either disdain for them or a defeatist attitude) and even more recently Obama's address regarding the anti-Muslim movie that many feel was an apology. These impressions on the candidates have had impact on the public's mood then any gotcha moment the factcheckers have uncovered.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

You have a point. Such moments, even if technically correct (as was the 47% remark), tend to have by far the greater magnitude, and they stick for a long time. Some are even applied to the politician to an extent where they begin to define them in the public's eye. Whereas the little lies being exposed and then nocked in the gotcha fact-checking websites are dwarved in comparison, and soon forgotten.

This type of journalism is at a crossroads very early after its inception. Whether it would grow into what you call something that would provoke the public's genuine outrage at the politicians' bullshit, or it would quickly surrender to the pressure of various political interests, will define its fate. And I am afraid I have gone past the time when I used to be overly idealistic and I would have believed that the former was possible.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the fact checkers have become politicized which is made possible due to the subjective nature of truth statements. Politi-fact in particular has become a joke because they try to make both sides equally wrong.

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/05/a-fact-not-even-politifact-can-spin-conservatives-more-wrong-more-often/