Fact-finding mission

Oh, that 4-letter word!

There’s something wrong with a world where a four-letter word like “fact” can cause such trouble. That’s what journalism is supposed to be about: unearthing facts and presenting them without bias to reveal as complete a story as possible.

Most major newspapers take accuracy and corrections very seriously. The preference is always to get the story right the first time, but if we fail, we must own our mistakes and quickly correct them. Unbiased news reporting should not present just the facts that are convenient or that support just one side. Opinion pages are a different matter altogether, and in most places-this newspaper included-the operations are independent of each other.

Internet and cable network proliferation have erased that line for some outlets, though, making it difficult at times to determine who is telling the unbiased truth. And when your crazy Uncle Harry can have a blog and post whatever passes through his brain, well … it sorta explains the need for fact-checking. And no, that dumpy guy is probably not a French model,no matter what his online profile says.

Nonpartisan fact-checkers like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org were preceded by sites that wore (and still wear) their biases on their sleeves, such as Media Matters for America (liberal) and NewsBusters (conservative), and that we use exceedingly sparingly here.

The 2012 presidential election campaign has been called the most fact-checked in history, which might have been helped a little by Mitt Romney pollster Neil Newhouse’s declaration that the Romney campaign would not be run by fact-checkers. Add to that accusations of bias, particularly against PolitiFact, and it appears the search for truth has hit a roadblock.

One of the rules I use when fact-checking is the two-source rule-unique reporting in at least two places-with one preferably being the original source. If I find something in only one place (the same story reposted in multiple places only counts as one), I won’t use it at all, or not without attribution to that source.

I’ve been asked many times why I use PolitiFact and FactCheck (though they’re far from the only sources we use here); though each fails at times, on the whole, I believe they tend to be far more accurate than many other sites. Additionally, they rely on original sources and peer-reviewed research, and more importantly, original reporting (the staffs are, after all, reporters and editors) rather than just selected news stories that prove their point. Linking to sources increases a sense of trustworthiness; I want them to show their work so I can check it for myself. Their funding sources are also disclosed clearly, which is more than can be said for some sites.

So why the ruckus? Blame it on, for one, the over-politicized atmosphere of today.

Conservative Fact Check uses as proof of bias by PolitiFact a counting by party of “Pants on Fire” rulings, then notes that the presence of more negative fact-checks of Republicans indicated clear bias, saying, “To have any semblance of fairness, PolitiFact should play it 50/50 and present an equal number of lies from both sides. They clearly are not concerned with any pretense.” It also noted: “They also unfairly tarnish Michele Bachmann as a liar, when anybody who follows her already understands that many of her statements aren’t meant to be truthful in the first place-she simply says what she feels.”

Both arguments should trouble anyone concerned with truth and perceptions of reality, especially if you ruminate on their many ironies or the idea of a quota. Or that the site had to cut ties with its Obama birth certificate “expert” after it was revealed that “TechDude” was a fake … who’d been outed several years prior.

Apparently fact-checking wasn’t involved in taking him on.

Blogger Bryan White of PolitiFactBias.com doesn’t hide his bias on that site or his newer Zebra Fact Check, which claims that facts are black or white. While I’m sure his intentions are good, the posts I checked seemed to suffer from the same problems (selection bias, relativism, parsing of language, etc.) that White claims other sites have. And gosh, most of the statements checked are from Democrats or from PolitiFact, which, darn it, is a bit south of 50/50 treatment.

What I find funny is that often the same people who decry PolitiFact and others like it will crow when a Republican is proved correct. I tried very hard to find something that multiple sites covered vindicating a Republican, but it turned into a fruitless few hours. Even the rumor that Tagg Romney owned voting machines in Ohio seemed to be debunked only on the sites with a supposed liberal slant, which seems odd somehow.

Bill Adair, the creator of PolitiFact, told PBS’ Media shift blog in 2008 that political reporters were previously held back by the idea of reporting what both sides say without calling out falsehoods: “Political journalists-myself included-have been too timid about fact-checking in the past because we were afraid we would be criticized for being biased. But facts aren’t biased. Now, we are finally calling the balls and strikes in the campaign the way we should have in the past.”

Adair added, “Our job is not to get politicians to stop lying. Our job is to inform voters. After that, it’s up to the voters.”

And he’s right. Voters should seek out truth, not just opinions with which they agree. Fact-checking and independent research can help, but only if we’re willing to listen and judge based on facts, not bias dressed up as facts.

———◊———

Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.

Editorial, Pages 17 on 02/05/2014

Upcoming Events