What’s to be done with lying liars and the lies they tell journalists and the public?
This is a topic of serious discussion in journalism circles, perhaps now more than ever. I say that with the knowledge that two years ago I wrote a column that declared, “We are in the midst of a blossoming of new forms of fact checking, particularly those that rely on crowdsourcing.”
Perhaps I was a bit ahead of the curve—or, you know, wrong.
In truth, I’d rather have written that sentence this week, given the recent momentum for fact checking, and what we can expect for 2012.
Two weeks ago I flew to New York to take part in a November 15 gathering focused on fact checking. The event was organized by Jeff Jarvis and the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism, in conjunction with Craig Newmark (aka Mr. Craigslist). It brought together people from FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Retraction Watch, NBC News, the Public Insight Network, the Sunlight Foundation, and other groups, organizations, and people working in this area.
I kicked things off by giving a brief look at the history and current state of fact checking. Here are my slides, which offer a decent amount of detail, even without the accompanying narration:
Jarvis also wrote a good round up of the discussion that ensued. He included some points made by NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen:
Supply of disinformation: Jay Rosen argued that we are seeing a disturbing trend in “verification in reverse:” taking a fact and unmaking it, until people don’t believe it anymore. He cited the birthers and climate-change deniers as well as Mitt Romney’s much-fact-checked and debunked campaign commercial. He said there is a growing supply of “public untruths.” He argued: “Verification in reverse should be a beat… We have to start ranking public untruths by their seriousness and spread — we have to start IDing the ones that are out there and influencing public conversation, even though they’re already being fact-checking… We have to start acknowledging what’s going on with systematically distorting truth…”
The concept of public untruths seemed to resonate with everyone in the room. Rosen offered the important caution that public fact checking as it currently exists—an often dispassionate recitation of the facts, with some kind of verdict—is not enough to counteract the concerted efforts to foist untruths upon the public.
The truth about public untruths is there’s a lot of money and effort behind them. That now-infamous Romney ad is a minute long and it probably cost a lot more than what PolitiFact pays a reporter for a year. (That’s a guess; anyone care to fact check it?)
In the battle of public untruths versus fact checking, the forces of untruth have more money, more people, and, I would argue, much better expertise. They know how to birth and spread a lie better than we know how to debunk one. They are more creative about it, and, by the very nature of what they’re doing, they aren’t constrained by ethics or professional standards. Advantage, liars.
With a presidential election year about to kick off, the best minds in the area of public untruths are squaring off to out-Swift Boat each other, or to work in concert and go after common opponents.
Are journalists and other interested parties equipped to beat back the lies? Will things be any different, now that PolitFact is franchising itself to different states and, as detailed in my slides, there are new tools and projects aimed at helping sniff out and expose misinformation?
I’ll say this: in the close to decade I have been tracking and reporting on accuracy and fact checking I’ve never seen more smart and talented people interested in fact checking. I’ve never seen more money and organizations lining up on the side of the debunkers. All of these things were reinforced at the CUNY event, and in the weeks since.
The reason why misinformation takes a head start and is so hard to combat is because often it confirms underlying narratives. These narratives are what build individual world view and our group identity. There are those who find utility in truth because they see value in actions based on actual information, but there are also those who find utility in mistruth because the mistruth protects the stories and beliefs which hold the group together.
In America there is a problem in that one side has a story and they've pounded it home since Reagan announced "Government is the problem", while the other side avoids stories, pretends to be above stories, and attempts to win people over with the math of their neutral arguments. Aside from Bernie Sanders and a few others, the left tries to avoid stories and sell itself as the pragmatic middle - the vulcans, the logical alternative. No visions for them, no sir. No values to stand strong on. Compromise, cooperation, capitulation is the third non-sentimental way's route between radicals and hippies no one listens to because they're much more fun to punch. Plus it proves their non-partisan vulcan values.
And so you have an assymmetry between those who use stories which don't reflect reality (because their narratives are fairy tales) and those who use "facts" which don't resonate (because they have no narrative to fit them within). The party of the left tries to depoliticize their supporters so they don't get upset over every "pragmatic" thing they do while the right encourages their supporters to be enraged so they can use that anger as an excuse to avoid "pragmatism".
Contributing to this problem is the amount of organizations which publish misinformation in a style that's dressed up like fact and requires serious analysis to debunk. This then often becomes the "pragmatic" view.
What fact checkers need to do is to not only present facts, but to present them in a way that makes for a consistent narrative. It's not enough to explain that such and such is a lie, one should show what the purpose of the lie is, what's the story it's trying to tell, who benefits, what's the record of the individual spreading the misinfo.
Don't just measure the lie, measure the fairy tale the lie supports.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 02:45 PM
The reason why misinformation takes a head start and is so hard to combat is because often it confirms underlying narratives. These narratives are what build individual world view and our group identity. There are those who find utility in truth because they see value in actions based on actual information, but there are also those who find utility in mistruth because the mistruth protects the stories and beliefs which hold the group together.
You mean like how hydraulic fracturing is responsible for widespread contamination of aquifers with HF fluids when all the “peer reviewed” data concludes its not?
PRAISE BE TO SCIENCE
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 02:55 PM
You mean like how hydraulic fracturing is responsible for widespread contamination of aquifers with HF fluids when all the “peer reviewed” data concludes its not?
When you say "all" did you mean this bit?-
http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113
"The 2004 EPA study (PDF) is routinely used to dismiss complaints that hydraulic fracturing fluids might be responsible for the water problems in places like Pinedale. The study concluded that hydraulic fracturing posed "no threat" to underground drinking water because fracturing fluids aren't necessarily hazardous, can’t travel far underground, and that there is "no unequivocal evidence" of a health risk.
But documents obtained by ProPublica show that the EPA negotiated directly with the gas industry before finalizing those conclusions, and then ignored evidence that fracking might cause exactly the kinds of water problems now being recorded in drilling states.
Buried deep within the 424-page report are statements explaining that fluids migrated unpredictably -- through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought -- in as many as half the cases studied in the United States. The EPA identified some of the chemicals as biocides and lubricants that “can cause kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage through prolonged or repeated exposure." It found that as much as a third of injected fluids, benzene in particular, remains in the ground after drilling and is “likely to be transported by groundwater.""
#3 Posted by Gnip Gnop, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 04:56 PM
@ Gnip Gnop
Wow! I hadnt realized that Lustgarten's work had been through a rigourous peer review process like the other studies I mentioned that concluded hydraulic fracturing fluids hadn't contaminated local aquifers. Silly me.
Anyhoo, one of the lines from the article you so kindly cut and pasted here really sparked my interest. Rightfully so, for you see, Lustgarten
has been caught on many occasions playing bait and switch with information.
It found that as much as a third of injected fluids, benzene in particular, remains in the ground after drilling and is “likely to be transported by groundwater".
Looks pretty damning, dont it? I am sure that what the authors rather deceptive intent was. Problem is, the portion of the report he quoted (4-12) isnt refering to fluid migration in shale gas formations but to fluid migration in coal seam formations. Very different geologies associated with the two as well as radically different hydrodynamics.
Its quite shocking that he got away with it ... almost seems like this could have been caught had only there been a "watchdog" outfit dedicated "excellence in journalism".
If only.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 08:28 PM
The biggest, most damaging lies come from the center of political power.
And the cozier the press and govt become with each other, the more damage those lies do to the rest of us.
Be a truly free and independent press: never give monopoly power the benefit of the doubt.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 09:03 PM
Mike H. Link or shut it.
Here is mine: http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single
Peer reviewed for your enjoyment.
#6 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 12:13 AM
"You mean like.."
Oh cute. I have a follower. Tread carefully everyone. This child is a self described 'math wiz'. He goes from blog to blog calling people stupid for being distrustful of extraction industries. You might be called a mouthbreather! Ooooo scary scary.
"how hydraulic fracturing is responsible for widespread contamination of aquifers with HF fluids when all the “peer reviewed” data concludes its not?"
Two studies of small samples, one study being conducted by Penn State and the other discovered Marcellus Shale methane leaking from the frack site into the groundwater. We discussed this before, remember?
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/salazar_calls_for_coverage.php
By the by, you all know the story about how fracking never contaminates ground water, and then you get specific and oily folks start screaming "Spills don't count! Methane and benzene don't count! Frack fluid from a fracked well with a good seal is ALL we're talking about here and in that one scenario, fracking hasn't contaminanted diddly."
Well, it turns out what they should have been saying is 'fracking hasn't contaminanted diddly...on record.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html
"Ms. Greathouse, the former environmental research contractor and the lead author of the 1987 E.P.A. report, said that she and her colleagues had found “dozens” of cases that she said appeared to specifically involve drinking water contamination related to fracking. But they were unable to investigate those cases further and get access to more documents because of legal settlements.All but the Parsons case were excluded from the E.P.A. study, she said, because of pressure from industry representatives who were members of an agency working group overseeing the research."
Good read if you got the time, and yeah, Mikey-boy? I wasn't going to talk fracking, but you brought it up. Can't tell you how flattered I am to have an admirerer.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 03:36 AM
See, this was what I wanted to talk about:
"And so you have an assymmetry between those who use stories which don't reflect reality (because their narratives are fairy tales) and those who use "facts" which don't resonate (because they have no narrative to fit them within). The party of the left tries to depoliticize their supporters so they don't get upset over every "pragmatic" thing they do while the right encourages their supporters to be enraged so they can use that anger as an excuse to avoid "pragmatism".
Contributing to this problem is the amount of organizations which publish misinformation in a style that's dressed up like fact and requires serious analysis to debunk. This then often becomes the "pragmatic" view."
Here's an awesome example of this:
http://www.thenation.com/article/164925/unemployment-dips-hardly-makes-lost-year-economic-recovery
"Starting in late 2009, the Obama administration started framing our economic crisis as a “dual deficit problem.” In other words, the administration wouldn’t push for a larger short-term deficit—spending more money to stimulate the weak economy, a key tenet of Keynesian economics—without also cutting the long-term deficit. Treasury officials told a reporter at The New Republic that the administration needed to show “some signal to US bondholders that it takes the deficit seriously” and that “spending more money now [on stimulus] could actually raise long-term [government] rates, thereby offsetting its stimulative effect.”
This was a victory for the network of elites that The Nation’s Ari Berman refers to as the “austerity class.” By buying into the now-conventional wisdom that it was economically unsound to grow short-term deficits without simultaneously decreasing long-term deficits, long-term deficit reduction was turned into a co-equal problem of economic woes. This is like a doctor telling a patient suffering from multiple gunshot wounds that he should have a healthier diet—it might be true, but there’s a much more pressing problem.
Want an example? In the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama stated that he would freeze 2011 discretionary spending even though unemployment was projected to be above 8 percent, because, he said, if “we don’t take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery,” which “would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.” This conventional wisdom gave the Republicans the leverage they needed to destroy any pro-active economic agenda.
So the administration spent much of 2011 engaging in the wrong analysis of the economy, one that looked like that of the far right. Early in the year the administration brought in new advisers, notably Bill Daley as chief of staff, in order to repair relationships with business in the wake of financial reform. This incorrectly diagnosed the problem as a liberal government beating up on unappreciated job creators, instead of weak income and mass unemployment among workers."
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 03:58 AM
So yeah, I guess we're doing some fracking talk, in this thread?
Here's an interesting article about the fracking leases and the trouble on can get into with them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/drilling-down-fighting-over-oil-and-gas-well-leases.html
One part that was interesting:
"Mr. Astrella said that leases also typically lacked a clause requiring drillers to pay for a test of the property’s well water before drilling started, and landowners often do not think to do the tests themselves. If drilling leads to problems with drinking wells, landowners have few options if they want to prove that their water was fine before drilling started.
For some landowners, it can be a costly mistake.
“It’s been one expense after another since our water went bad, and the company only has to cover part of it,” said Ronald Carter, 72, of Montrose, Pa. Mr. Carter and his wife, Jean, said they signed a lease in 2006 for a one-time fee of $25 per acre on their 75 acres and annual royalty payments of 12.5 percent.
The Carters live on $3,500 a month, including the $1,500 per month they average in gas royalties. But they had to spend $7,000 to install a water purifier when their drinking supply became contaminated in 2009 after drilling near their property.
The Carters joined a lawsuit with about a dozen neighbors, including Mr. Ely, accusing Cabot Oil and Gas of contaminating their drinking water.
Mr. Stark, the Cabot spokesman, said that his company was not responsible for any water contamination in the area and that Cabot’s studies showed that the gas seepage into the drinking water was occurring naturally.
“All the testing we have been able to conduct show the water meets federal safe drinking water standards,” Mr. Stark said."
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 04:38 AM
@ Thalia,
You must have missed the part of the study that found, quite conlcusively that "we found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids"
SCIENCE!!!
Mr. Astrella said that leases also typically lacked a clause requiring drillers to pay for a test of the property’s well water before drilling started, and landowners often do not think to do the tests themselves. If drilling leads to problems with drinking wells, landowners have few options if they want to prove that their water was fine before drilling started.
The reason “fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins” is because its not necessary. Many leases do not have language requiring companies to compensate landowners for water contamination because it is already a matter of state law and would be redundant. As per the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act of 1984, operators are automatically presumed guilty and may be held civilly liable for any groundwater contamination in the vicinity of their drilling operations. This being the case, every well drilled in Pennsylvania is preceded by baseline water quality sampling so that a driller can respond to claims of contamination if they are made. That’s why there has been no traction in the courts against Cabot and others in Pennsylvania because the plaintifs have no case
Not surprising that Urbana left this relevant detail out.
Good read if you got the time, and yeah, Mikey-boy? I wasn't going to talk fracking, but you brought it up. Can't tell you how flattered I am to have an admirerer.
Hmm ... I wonder why the EPA'a came to the exact opposite conlcusion of longtime O&G opponent Carla Greathouse .. could it be that the West Virginia lab subcontracted for the water analysis came to the conlcusion that HF operations had nothign to do with Parson's contamination?
why I do believe it did.
PRAISE BE TO SCIENCE
#10 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 01:13 PM
"You must have missed the part of the study that found, quite conlcusively that "we found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids""
Isn't it fun being a fracker child like Mike H?
"My tap is on fire! The frack process contaminated my water!"
"Ha HA! That's not salt or frack fluid! That's Marcellus Shale methane! Doesn't count! I'm invisible!"
And so the fracking game of calvinball continues.
"The reason “fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins” is because its not necessary. Many leases do not have language requiring companies to compensate landowners for water contamination because it is already a matter of state law and would be redundant."
If I were planning on having a lease with a frack company, I'd like to know their obligations are spelt out in an agreement and not just in state law which is subject to juristiction, change, and interpretation.
"This being the case, every well drilled in Pennsylvania is preceded by baseline water quality sampling so that a driller can respond to claims of contamination if they are made. That’s why there has been no traction in the courts against Cabot and others in Pennsylvania because the plaintifs have no case."
Of course they don't. The tests were done at the behest of the extraction company and the chemicals to test for are still largely unknown since frack fluids are considered proprietary. I'd like to believe industry hired ratings agencies were honest, but after watching real estate appraisers inflate half destroyed houses as 500,000 dollar properties and security appraisers rate known junk as AAA, industry sponsored tests and records don't carry the same weight they used to.
If I were considering leasing my land, I would get independent tests of the water/air quality and make for damn sure that my property is covered for contamination from any source of the extractors, not just the fracked well. Leaks from plastic lined wastewater pools, trucks, condensors, pipes, all the points of failure to not contaminate which aren't counted by the rules of Calvinball. Any kinds of contamination from methane, frack fluid (disclosure and samples I'd demand), diesel, whatever they bring on my property I'd make sure are known and covered. To me, all of this would be a big fricken hassle which could ruin my property and community
It's so much easier to say no and gtfo.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 03:15 PM
"Hmm ... I wonder why the EPA'a came to the exact opposite conlcusion of longtime O&G opponent Carla Greathouse .. could it be that the West Virginia lab subcontracted for the water analysis came to the conlcusion that HF operations had nothign to do with Parson's contamination?
why I do believe it did.
PRAISE BE TO SCIENCE"
You know, I've been looking on the net and at the documents listed with the article
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/216377-doc-reader-with-epa-report.html
and none of them seem to say the EPA disagrees with Carla Greathouse and one section of docs details tests, submitted by Kaiser Gas during a lawsuit, which attempt to claim the water wasn't contaminated:
"Water Tests by Gas Company Do Not Find Water Contamination p 390"
Anyways, do be a dear and document your claims. Thanks.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 3 Dec 2011 at 06:07 PM
Off topic, I suppose, but:
Silverman says: 'There is also a growing sentiment within in journalism that it’s time to stop allowing falseshoods to stand without challenge, or to quote people spreading lies just because they represent the ”other side”.'
In other words, "do our job."
Then, Silverman says: 'I look on the other side and I see coordinated e-mail campaigns to spread lies; I see political pros investing money and expertise in creating falsehoods and injecting them into the public sphere via the Internet, TV, radio, and other mediums. I see people with a big head-start.'
Dude: who ARE those guys? What are the names of those "political pros?" WHO employs them, right now? What specific lies have they told these past few weeks?
Answering those questions, seems to me, would be taking action on the "growing sentiment" you cite just above.
Pace Thimbles (whose first comment makes sense), this isn't difficult. I tell every source that if she tells me a lie I will find out and I will expose it--that the lie will become the story. If every reporter did that, the lies would get a whole lot less common, and their false narrative would wither.
#13 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 01:11 PM
Oh geez, this is fun:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/lies-damned-lies-and-elections/
"This will be true even of those news organizations specifically charged with fact-checking. Yes, they’ll call out some lies — but they’ll also claim that some perfectly reasonable statements are lies, in order to keep their precious balance. This is already happening: as Igor Volsky points out, one of the finalists for Politifact’s Lie of the Year is a Democratic claim — that Republicans want to abolish Medicare — that happens to be entirely true. [as shown previously on CJR]
This will not be a fun year."
Not to be outdone by Politifact, Politico sweeps in!
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/policy-indifference/
"One crucial thing you need to understand about political journalists is that with some honorable exceptions, they don’t know or care about actual policy. In a way, that makes sense — the skills needed to cultivate contacts, to get the inside scoop on what’s going on in Congressional scheming or campaign war rooms, are very different from the skills needed to interpret CBO spreadsheets. The problem, however, is that all too often political journalists mistake the theater of policy for reality (or don’t care about the difference).
Hence, the awful decision of Politico to give Paul Ryan an award as healthcare policymaker of the year."
It would be a lot harder to spread untruths if stupid stupid people didn't frequently repeat them.
But at least they can claim they're "balanced". Truth? What is truth? Is it something I can get exclusive access to?
We rely on horrible people to inform us.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 7 Dec 2011 at 04:26 PM
Speaking of untruthes, it appears that the Manchester Guardian is climbing down from its assertion that Murdoch's reporters deleted messages from the cell-phone of Milly Dowling, the child who was murdered and whose parents were (it appears) exploited by the Guardian.
You still have a phone-hacking scandal, true. But much of the outrage about the scandal was generated by the Dowling story. Without it you seem to have a lot of celebrities and their hangers-on unhappy at the tabloids. I don't expect CJR to have disbelieved the Guardian's tale. I do expect CJR to note the retraction.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 13 Dec 2011 at 12:41 PM