Fact Checking Fixation
Whether it's that Associated Press editor pushing for "accountability journalism" or that NPR segment from last week where they discussed how debunking misinformation merely solidifies the incorrect perception most of the time, the newsmedia is acknowledging they need to get more careful.
Today's well-intentioned journalistic initiative to make the campaign trail less cluttered?
The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" section, with the following goal:
The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Post, is to "truth squad" the national political debate in the period leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Our goal is to shed as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving important national issues, such as the war in Iraq, immigration, health care, social issues, the economy, and the records of the various presidential candidates. When we come across a statement or claim that is at variance with the facts, as best we can establish them, we will point that out.While it's clear they're taking their job very seriously, they still keep it readable with features like "The Pinocchio Test" where they score misstatements or exaggerations on a scale of one to four Pinocchios. (And reward fully truthful statements with the mark of "Geppetto.")
And, unsurprisingly, I'm a fan. Sort of. So far, it looks as if they're getting the hang of things by picking on some low-hanging political fruit:
Yeahhhh. Not exactly ripping the front page stories … yet. And their fastidious picking of nits doesn't seem to be the best usage of their time and research. But it's early yet. And I want to give them time to see what happens when they hit their stride.
Why not investigate the claims vs. facts of Hillary Clinton's health care plan? Or Mike Huckabee's "values voter" bona fides. Or Barack Obama's tax plan. You know, stuff that people are talking about.
One of the biggest challenges that the "Fact Checker" faces is how exactly to prioritize the claims out there. If Joe Biden and Bill Richardson take some liberties with the truth in speeches on the same day, which one will the Post go after first? Does the candidate's poll numbers determine attention, or does the level of obfuscation (i.e., how many Pinocchio's)?
Also, how will the Washington Post writers deal with the "Fact Checkers" look over their shoulders at their work?
Good luck, "Fact Checker" team. We'll be watching.