• Finally, does the statement concern a matter of public importance? Politicians’ personal lives are not irrelevant, but it’s hard to see how Paul Ryan’s exaggeration of his abilities as a runner helps anyone assess his fitness for the vice presidency.
As factchecking moves closer to the journalistic mainstream, it’s important that journalists are careful in what they label as “factchecks” and what statements they choose to scrutinize. Otherwise, the media could dilute and devalue a practice that should be an important part of campaign coverage.
- 1
- 2
Every new govt claim should be assumed a lie. Then go from there.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 04:32 PM
Otherwise, the media could dilute and devalue a practice that should be an important part of campaign coverage.
With all due respect to Professor Nyhan, I reckon the tense he should be employing here is the present perfect--because the practice of fact-checking has been diluted and devalued already.
#2 Posted by RobC, CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 04:59 PM
Thanks, Brendan! I think we came to the same conclusion. And, I just posted my comment at your previous article on the subject. It should be here!
The following was posted at bit.ly/AZp298 and on the AP's website (http://bit.ly/Qp9rVa). I think the AP has justified Newhouse's (and Romney's) attitude about "damn the fact checkers, full speed ahead". I believe the AP needs to re-do their "fact check" to stand up to generally-accepted fact checking principles.
***
The Associated Press bruised and bloodied fact checkers everywhere with its effort last night on former President Bill Clinton's speech. While legitimate fact checkers (FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and the Washington Post) produced good reports on the lengthy speech, the venerable AP tried to do its own, and ended up editorializing instead.
This disappointing AP piece could win that title solely on the basis of the last section - addressing the inapposite* Clinton-Lewinsky comment instead of (not in addition to) the Romney official's fact-checkers-be-damned statement.
Here is that section, in its entirety: CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad." THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were "legally accurate" but also allowed that he "misled people, including even my wife."
However, the rest of this "fact check" also comes off as an opinion piece that did not use "facts" - let alone citations to back up its opinions - to refute Clinton's comments.
This is most glaring in the first section, where a comment about compromise is "checked" by a speculative, overly-broad commentary that both parties must have been equally responsible when "the grand deal" fell apart. ("The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote." Come on, did it not come up for a vote because House Speaker John Boehner was concerned that some Democrats criticized the President, or because the Boehner could not deliver his caucus?)
The AP piece and the accompanying video that it put out with one of the reporters repeating some of his piece have already received play here in Arizona (For example, the video is featured on the Star's website.)
This Fact Check not only gives the Associated Press a black eye, but it bruises all fact checkers' sharper eyes. With opinion efforts like this being widely-circulated as a "Fact Check" by the AP, it is no wonder that the Romney-Ryan campaign (expressly and especially) feels that it get away with disregarding Fact Checks.
* The famous Clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" remark -made before fact checks and not repeated after widespread ridicule - may well have been an untruthful statement; howeve,r it is far from a campaign official saying that a presidential candidate and his campaign are going to willfully repeat erroneous remarks and ignore a consensus view of fact checkers.
#3 Posted by Mitch Martinson - ArizonasPolitics.com, CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 05:29 PM
I agree with your overall point that we journalists should take more than narrow definitions of accuracy into account and beware of falling into old narratives. But I want to challenge you on this point:
it’s hard to see how Paul Ryan’s exaggeration of his abilities as a runner helps anyone assess his fitness for the vice presidency.
Would you say the same if he had claimed to have medaled in the 1992 Olympic Marathon? If you would not, then the degree of "exaggeration" does play a role.
Serious runners (of which I have been one) generally agree that shaving a few minutes off your marathon time barely counts as a fib, but cutting a 4-hour to a sub-3 is a serious enough breach to call your character and trustworthiness into question.
I am glad we are starting to have these debates over the nature and significance of untruths. The diversity of views so far is refreshing and stimulating. Onward!
#4 Posted by Brian B, CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 06:37 PM
The AP extravaganza was entirely predictable, as a response to the uproar over Ryan's speech (among other things). This has been the standard media focus for years now - "balance" must be maintained even if material has to be stretched or invented to make the narrative seem "balanced". It would be a far better thing to have elementary analysis by skeptical reporters, rather than the bland acceptance of questionable claims, or the sort of middle-school cattiness that sank Gore's campaign. Failing that, though, and I don't see that coming back any time soon (if it ever actually existed), I would be more than happy to dispose of this nauseating and smarmy "centrist" bushwa in favor of outright partisanship. Bring back actual "left-wing" and "right-wing" papers and let each of us make up our minds, since the media outlets have abrogated their responsibility of informing us in favor of a cowardly, cowering refusal to upset the loudest voices.
#5 Posted by JohnR, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 04:16 PM