Fact-checking politicians seems to be the journalistic "in" thing to do this campaign season. Aside from the self-aggrandizing nature of such pronouncements, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with the concept.
The devil is in the details, however. Over at the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto notes that these esoteric fact check stories too often end up as opinion pieces criticizing the policies or rhetoric of politicians.
In more cases than not, it's Republicans who bear the brunt of such "corrections," simply because truth in politics is often a highly subjective thing. Taranto focuses on one particular fact check by USA Today criticizing a John McCain ad for quoting Barack Obama out of context:
Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).
Example: USA Today has a "reality check" of a McCain ad whose script runs as follows:
Narrator: "Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are . . .Obama: ". . . just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."Narrator: "How dishonorable. Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops, increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals: too risky for America."The USA Today headline reads "Quote From Obama Taken Out of Context." In a way this is a tautology, since a quotation by definition is taken out of its original context (and placed in a new one). But of course the phrase out of context usually connotes "used in a misleading way." Is that the case here? Here is a longer version of the Obama quote, per USA Today:
"We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."One the one hand, Obama was making a broader argument, which the McCain ad ignores: that America should send more troops to Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama clearly did assert that America is "air-raiding villages and killing civilians" (the subsequent clause makes that undeniable), though one could argue about whether he was asserting or merely worrying that we are "just" doing so.
Read the rest.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Matthew,
October 7, 2008 - 18:23 ET by Indiana JoeRelated, but I've been wondering about the new kid on the block; FactCheck.org. I thought they were pretty clean, then found similar "context" and opinion in their "facts." Looked over their site, and found their address, as follows:
FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington DC 20045
The "Annenberg Public Policy Center" caught my eye, as did the "Press Building" and DC address. Then, I realized why "Annenberg" sounded so familiar. Wasn't that the name of some foundation that Obama was associated with in Chicago?
I was just wondering if anyone had checked that seeming linkage, because it smells kind of fishy to me.
Thanks,
IJ
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
Annenberg in the title
October 7, 2008 - 18:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyJoe,
"Annenberg" is on the masthead (is that what's it called? the top part that announces the title) of their website.
From their About Us page:
"The Annenberg Political Fact
Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the
University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and
philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of
scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address
public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding
from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying
organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg
Foundation."
So, yes, it is the same Annenberg Foundation that funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Thanks, Nick
October 7, 2008 - 19:19 ET by Indiana JoeI did read the "about us" page, and didn't see a direct reference to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. I thought the odds were good, but didn't want to assume so. Not to nit-pick, but are we absolutely sure it's not just a coincidence? Because my understanding of the Annenberg Challenge is a little different than that mission statement.
I guess I could see a relationship, education, but that might be a little slim for such an assumption. I'd rather be sure it was the same foundation before I judged how it may effect their objectivity.
Coz, y'know, people are always wanting links and proof, not assumptions, no matter how reasonable they seem. ;^)
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
I should've chosen a name that didn't sound like nitpick...
October 7, 2008 - 19:32 ET by nicholas nicklebyThis probably stinks up any chance I have of referring to FactCheck.org for authoritative information, eh? I still think FactCheck.org is non-partisan, at least based on the way they fact-check both sides. (And, heck, Cheney referred to it as a source of facts in his VP debate in 2004. Although, to be honest, that would be a disingenous reference, since I don't trust Cheney.)
But it's definitely the same Foundation. Here's the Annenberg Foundation website that lists their projects: http://www.annenberg... Fourth from the top is "Annenberg Challenge" and three below that is the "Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania", which runs FactCheck.org (which is mentioned in the short paragraph there).
(If you click on the Annenberg Challenge, you go to a small page on that, but the link to the AC's homepage wasn't working for me, so I tried to go the other way. I found the Annenberg Challenge homepage, and there on the bottom is a link to the Annenberg Foundation as their sponsor. http://www.annenberg... Yeah, definitely the same, I'd say.)
Well, thanks again, Nick
October 7, 2008 - 23:42 ET by Indiana JoeOkay, well, I must disagree then that FC is non-partisan. See, that's based on how I read some of their Obama vs McCain "checking." Can't remember the exact "fact," but the way they presented it is what got me interested in checking their back-trail. Up to then, I'd used them without question too.
That's why I wanted to be sure before I assumed anything. And, yeah, it will effect how I see factcheck.org, but maybe not everyone. I just can't help but think that maybe Mr. Annenberg has a particular axe to grind politically, y'know? And asking for facts on one group from another group, after finding out they are, in essence, the same group... well, seems kind of... incestous, know what I mean?
But, props and thanks for checking that out for me. Appreciate it. ;^)
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
I believe...
October 8, 2008 - 00:52 ET by usbeefI believe factcheck.org is a complete fraud. Putting the Annenberg thing aside. Look at their sources for these so called "fact checks". They use sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, ABC News, ect.
So basically they are using the 5th column MSM as a basis for reliable information.
"Push back the liberal hordes!!" - Mark Levin
IJ...Go here..this
October 7, 2008 - 19:33 ET by bigtimerIJ...
Go here..this should tell you all you need to know about who are doing the fact checking and the reporting...
...and yes, the Annenberg name jumped out at me too..but when I saw Brooks Jackson on somewhere last night talking about this great Factcheck thing I knew I had a good reason not to like quite awhile back now, Brooks made me sick all the years he worked on CNN with his reports, which were always leftist...let alone Viveca Novak, who I have read and known about for years too...in fact I think she was fired from Time Rag over something to do with the Plame/Wilson crap...she has always been a lefty.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"Narrator: 'Who is Barack
October 7, 2008 - 18:55 ET by SchnikeysMcCain's on the right route, but he's weakening himself by only using one vehicle. He needs to use the "pin Obama on the Donkey" approach on several other issues, and he needs to bombard the media with ads that contain such messages.
Once he finishes Step One, he'll be ready for Step Two, which involves simultaneously performing Step One repeatedly and defending himself from the media/his critics for "using those tactics. Divisive remarks. That's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."
But the guy is just such a shoddy campaigner; I have zero faith in him and his abilities.
Back on topic: I think Mr. Sheffield's assessment is basically legit.
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
Schnikeys,
October 7, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Indiana Joe"Shoddy campaigner," mmm, well,... I don't know. He's managed to get elected for 24(?) years.
I tend to think that he's got some really poor handlers. He's been allowed to say and do stuff that makes no sense. I still cringe when I think of the "100 years in Iraq" line. Yeah, I know what he meant, but it was just handing the left a sound-bite. The idea that we would "finish the job" could have been expressed a lot better, made to sound noble and determined, in contrast to the "cut-and-run" meme. But most people just heard "endless war." Hell, finding better words should have been easy.
Hey, maybe he does know what he's doing. First, it seemed Obama peaked too early, but then he came roaring back. Then, after the R convention, seemed like Palin breathed new life into Mac, and things looked good. So now, Obama has closed back in, pulled ahead (if you believe the polls), and suddenly McCain is "going negative," so Obama and his water-carriers in the MSM are crying.
I think that's a good sign. When they're crying, you know you're hurting them. At least he's showing some fire in the belly, finally. And, the way these things see-saw, maybe that was the plan. Attacking too early may have back-fired, given Obama more time to spin his way out of Ayers, his (non-) record, his history. I'll admit I wish they'd have taken this route sooner, but maybe the timing really is everything.
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
McCain/Palin have been distorting the facts, Matt
October 7, 2008 - 19:20 ET by nicholas nicklebyI don't know, Matt, there have been a lot of undisputed distortions told by the McCain/Palin campaign.
Like, remember when they announced that they had a rally of a certain size at Fairfax, VA, and they claimed they got the number from the fire marshal? Except the fire marshal doesn't keep count of out-door rally numbers and didn't talk to the McCain campaign. ( http://www.bloomberg... )
Or remember when Sarah Palin kept talking about how she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere? Except, according to the Wall Street Journal, she didn't. ( http://online.wsj.co... ) (And she kept on using that lie even though a lot of people were calling her out on it; although she's been talking about it less now.)
Or remember when Palin said that the troops in Iraq are at pre-surge levels? They're not: http://wire.factchec... (Although, this might be just a mistake, not a distortion. But it is a mistake that the McCain/Palin ticket has made before--remember when McCain made the same mistake: http://blog.washingt... )
Or remember when McCain "suspended" his campaign and said he would not campaign until a bailout bill was passed? Except he never really suspended his campaign (remember the live feed of him getting his make-up prep for a tv interview instead of rushing off to Washington? remember that his ads were still up on tv?) and he didn't stay in Washington until the bill was passed.
Or do you remember that web ad that had Palin's lipstick comment and then Obama's lipstick comment and then had a clip of Couric (iirc) saying that there's a deep sexism here--except Couric was talking about some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton before Palin even entered the race. Now that's an example of taking a quotation out of context!
Now, you seem to be arguing that Republicans are getting fact-checked more because the MSM has a liberal bias. And you may be right in part--there are a lot of fact-checks that might be politically biased.
But the examples of Republican distortion I've just listed above--there's no spin there. Those are clear examples of how the McCain/Palin campaign has distorted the facts.
So, why are the Republicans getting fact-checked? It could be because there's a liberal bias--but it's also because the McCain/Palin campaign has been distorting the facts.
NN
October 7, 2008 - 19:30 ET by general companyWeak, try again
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well, Nick
October 7, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Indiana JoeI must say, no smoking gun there. There is plenty of spin, despite your protestations. Maybe we describe spin differently.
The WSJ article, for instance. The point of their reference to the pic of Palin holding up the t-shirt really says nothing about her support or not for the bridge, when she changed, why she changed or anything relevant to the real question of the "record contradicting" anything. To mention it at all strikes me as "spin," designed to make her appear to have really lobbied for it.
When the bridge gained attention, all she did was took a photo-op displaying some good-natured umbrage at the description of part of Alaska as "Nowhere." I'm sure the residents don't consider it "nowhere," and I'm not sure many people would not take offense at that label. I don't think it's especially relevant in the context of how "for" or "against" the bridge she was.
So she took money from the federal government for another project. Name me a governor that wouldn't. I don't even know if there's a procedure to do that, since I doubt anyone has. She didn't propose the bridge, and when it went away, she made lemonade out of lemons. And now there's a ferry to the island, so some form of access was needed. All in all, I think trying to hang the bridge around her like an albatross is a pretty far stretch. And the "spin" I mention kind of takes the wind out of the article, to me.
This is long enough, and the rest strike me as debatable points, the infamous "misspeaking" everyone falls back on sooner or later, or plain old nit-picking. The worst they do is point out some mistakes, and to try to make them rise to the level of anything more is not worth debating. IMHO, as usual.
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
Spin
October 7, 2008 - 20:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyI can already see it--a few posts between us that don't change either of our minds, and that probably bore everyone else. And as much as I'd like to avoid that...
I think my first example was my favorite: the McCain campaign said they got a crowd figure from the fire marshal--the fire marshal not only denies that they gave a number to the campaign, but points out that they couldn't have since it's not something that the fire marshal keeps track of. So, the McCain campaign could have told the truth about the crowd size, but they lied about where they got the number from. There's really nothing to investigate or spin there.
But I'll admit, some of the examples I gave could be explained away as mis-speaking (and I'm pretty generous about that, because I mis-speak all the time--that's why I prefer typing), like the pre-surge comment Palin made at the debate. I don't like that comment, since it's something their campaign seems to want to repeat, but it could be a series of accidents, not an intentional distortion.
But the fire marshal thing--that's a clear case of intentional distortion.
And using a quote Couric made about Clinton to make it look like she's talking about Palin? That's not someone mis-speaking--that's someone in the McCain campaign intentionally editing the tape to use a line out of context.
(As for the Bridge to Nowhere, my interest in it isn't that she took the money--as I've said before, I like roads, Palin taking the money for roads and other transportation needs is a-ok with me. My interest is in the way she presents herself--the "Thanks but no thanks" line--that's the distortion that she was called on, and I think the campaign finally decided that they could no longer run on that distortion since she's stopped saying it. So, she accepted the earmark to build the bridge--that's the "thanks" part--but in between "thanks" and "no thanks," Congress basically said, "you'll have to do it yourself." Now that would be a truthful line: "Thanks--wait, I have to pay for it myself?--no thanks!")
Sorry, Nick
October 7, 2008 - 23:48 ET by Indiana JoeStill think it's thin. I agree about the long posts that won't change anything. So, we agree about something, right?
Anyway, if it comes down to comparing campaign lies, which are important, which are not, we'd be here all month. Suffice to say that I feel Obama lies, lies more, and lies about more important things. Like what he'll do in office. More important to me than lies about who gets credit or blame for something that never happened, or someone's count of people.
I would only point out that you and I originally met when you claimed you were "open-minded." I don't believe I claimed that at the time, my mind was made up long ago, in re Dems and Reps. I would hazard a guess that, in truth, yours was too. But no biggie, no recriminations or accusations. Truth to tell, I didn't really believe that anyway. So, we can interact based on that, no problem.
Just so we know where we stand. ;^)
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
a long post with no argument, just a story about why I'm here
October 8, 2008 - 12:09 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Joe,
You're right, though I'm registered independent, I've been rooting for Obama for a
while now. (Though, no
worries, I'm not in a swing state. :) )
I do have my opinions on things (what's important, who to trust), so I'm not open-minded in that sense, but... well, I want to be honest with you about why I started coming to Newsbusters.
I was going to HuffPo, and that made me kind of sick--it seems to me that when you get a
lot of people to agree on certain issues, it doesn't get boring, it
starts to get a little extreme. Like, people will start by saying "I
don't like Sarah Palin's politics" and then it will snowball, and
someone will say "I hope she dies." (Okay, I
actually haven't seen those exact quotes, but I'm sure something like
them has been said.) It's just that whenever people seem to agree, it
creates an environment for more people to become more extreme. (I don't
know if you would agree, but I think this is true both left and right;
for an example on the right, we could turn to the people who yell out "terrorist" and "kill him" at McCain/Palin rallies.)
So, because I don't know a lot of conservatives in my day-to-day life (or maybe I do and we just never talk politics), I started coming here to see what conservatives were saying. On the internet, at HuffPo and here at NB, there sometimes is this shared idea that people on the other side are dumb, crazy, or just hate America. (In all honesty, that last one is more a conservative talking point: liberals hate America.) I just don't think that's true on either side--not all cons/libs are dumb, crazy, or hateful. I mean, I remember Guiliani once stopped a speech he was giving because someone yelled out that democrats were like terrorists--he stopped the speech and basically said, "no, Democrats love America and Republicans love America."
So, because I'm not willing to say all conservatives are dumb or crazy, I started coming here to see what you conservatives had to say, and I was (and am) totally willing to take your opinions seriously. (You've never heard me say that people are voting for McCain because they're secretly racist. I don't play the "secretly" anything card.) So, in that way, I like to think I am still open-minded. (Also, that's why when I ask a question here about why someone feels a certain way, and they answer me, I'm really sincere when I thank them for telling me.)
Now, because I take conservative opinions seriously, that also means I examine them seriously, and some of them don't make sense to me. Which is why I continue to come here and act as a contrarian, even though I really think all this typing is bad for my back.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll see you around the boards, Joe. Take care.
"It could be because there's a liberal bias"
October 7, 2008 - 19:57 ET by FastEd"but it's also because the McCain/Palin campaign has been distorting the facts." - and maybe Barry and Co., haven't been saying anything to check.
Here's a simple question to friends - what do you know about Sarah? Mayor, govenor, bridge, airplane, shoots moose, etc.
What do you know about Barry? (uh, what was that - couldn't hear 'ya).
And - are you saying that the Barry camp HASN'T made any distortions? What overseas money? Who is doodad pro? Doesn't know Billy Ayers - but wrote a review of his book? How did he get into law school, havaing been in a drug fog (mentioned in his own words, in his book)? So, how come MANY others don't know those FACTS? Maybe media bias in the tank for Barry?
It is also my assertion that the media is looking to be part of the Department of Media Communications, a new cabinet position in the Barry administration - charter to read "Keeping the american people informed with what we want them to know, by repitition or non-sourced facts."
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
oy vey
October 7, 2008 - 21:09 ET by nicholas nicklebyFastEd, are you serious?
First, I did not claim that the Obama/Biden campaign has not distorted the facts. In fact, you can just check FactCheck.org or Politifact to see a list of the Democratic distortion.
Second, you know a lot about Obama, but not all of it is true--if you listen to some crazy rumor-mongers you know that he's a foreign-born Muslim who belongs to a white-hating radical black Christian church who is both an elitist (who thinks he's better than you) and a Marxist (who wants to bring everyone down to his level). See how much you know about Obama (even if so much of it contradicts the other things)!
Seriously, if your friends don't know about Obama, then they haven't been paying attention--I mean, if they watched the RNC, then they at least should know that he worked as a community organizer.
But that said, the point of my post is that we can argue about spin on both sides over a bunch of issues--like taxes (did you know that Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times in two years? and did you know that in those same two years, McCain voted to raise taxes 105 times?).
But there are a number of issues that we can't really argue about--like McCain's "suspended" campaign, which he mentioned in the debate tonight. Remember when he promised to stay in Washington until the bill was passed? So, don't you feel kind of betrayed that he didn't stay true to his word?
Or, here's another, he said, a long time ago, that Jeremiah Wright was not an issue he was going to use in his campaign. (He actually said that he knows Obama, and Obama does not feel the way that Wright feels.) And just recently Palin brought up Wright--so, I think we should keep an eye on her; because if McCain is true to his word, he should've called her to tell her that that issue is off-limits. If she uses it again, then you know that either he hasn't kept true to his earlier statement not to use that topic, or that she doesn't listen. (Which would cast doubt on his choice of her as a VP.)
Nick,
October 7, 2008 - 23:53 ET by Indiana JoeSure, "spin on both sides." But, remember, this site is about media bias, primarily. And when it comes to that, it would be really "disingenuous" of you to claim that that is anything like "equal," FNC and talk-radio notwithstanding.
Seems I provided a comparative list to you once upon a time... but maybe it was someone else.
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
What difference did the fire marshal reference make?
October 8, 2008 - 00:22 ET by OneLoyalAmericanFirst, it didn't change the message context: Before selecting Govenor Palin as his running mate; Senator McCain could barely attract enough people to fill a telephone booth.
Second, McCain spokesbabe Kimmie didn't state "according to Farifax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson;" nor did she misquote Mr. Wilson as we often witness from unofficial Obama campaign aides disguised as news reporters.
So it appears Kimmie smooged with reliabe sources to obtain a reasonable crowd size estimation. Amazing how those firefighters always enjoy chatting "off the record" with the good looking ladies. Of course the "fire marshal" shouldn't comment, without a NFPA standard, outdoor gatherings are out of their jurisdiction.
Furthermore, while the Secret Service shouldn't provide details; turnstyles do have counting devices. Beginning count. Ending count.
So Nickster, what's your point. Are you asserting the Obama 2008 campaign doesn't do the same with their crowd estimates?
Hey One, The point I was
October 8, 2008 - 12:23 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey One,
The point I was making is that the McCain campaign said something and it was not true. Did the McCain campaign release a statement apologizing or explaining the mistake? I mean, people here have been calling for Obama to denounce Ayers'--but Ayers isn't on Obama's staff. Kimmie is on McCain's staff, and her statement went uncorrected or unexplained. (They could say, as you argue, that the number was an estimate released unofficially by a member of the fire department. They could say that! They didn't--they don't admit to being wrong.)
I'm not sure what you're reading wen you say that the spokesperson "didn't state 'according to Fairfax City Fire Marshal'"--that's exactly what they did. They released a press release saying that they had 23,000 people and attributed that number to the Fire Marshal. That's what they did!
So, to answer your final question, my point is simply this: the McCain campaign said something, and that was proven to be a distortion. To be clear, the distortion isn't the crowd size--the distortion is where they got that number from.
FactCheck.org
October 7, 2008 - 19:22 ET by BlueCat57I've found FactCheck to be fair and reliable.
Well, that's how I started.
October 7, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Indiana JoeWell, that's how I started. But some things have since made me wonder.
Trust, but verify.
"... smells like.... victory." - Robert Duvall, Apocalypse Now
IJ...did you catch my link
October 7, 2008 - 20:04 ET by bigtimerIJ...did you catch my link above to you about some of the characters involved in the whole operation?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Matt???
October 7, 2008 - 19:58 ET by TheSterWe doing a LIVE CHAT for the debate?
Ster.
»→ TheSter
October 7, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Cool ArrowW need more Dilithium Chrystals, I dunno him she kin holt tagethah.
She's brrreakin' up.
Dammit Jim I'm a doctor, not a double naught spy.
"We cannot win with eggheads and African-Americans." - Paul Begala, Democrat racebaiter
»→ TheSter
October 7, 2008 - 20:02 ET by Cool ArrowAnd the Ethylene Oxide is polymerizing in the lines.
"We cannot win with eggheads and African-Americans." - Paul Begala, Democrat racebaiter
Coolster
October 7, 2008 - 20:07 ET by MrShy"A chat WOULD be logical."
- Baspock Obama, Vulcan of Ears Galaxy
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun