In this case, the Post succeeded in its goal of “laying out the claims and facts clearly,” but the addition of that “ready-made term” arguably confused what was an otherwise solid analysis by the Post. We’ve written before at The Swing States Project about the challenges of “the standard lingo of the factchecking industry, which generally tries to sort out true and false claims, and labels the most outrageous assertions as lies, if only idiomatically” and “the difficulty [factcheckers] face in pushing back at political rhetoric that’s irresponsible or unfounded, but not demonstrably false.” Swing States Project’s Nevada correspondent, Jay Jones, wrote those words while praising the Las Vegas Sun’s use of a “fairness” meter (rather than a “truth” meter) in its factchecking feature. Perhaps more outlets should adopt the approach.
While KUSA, here, calls its work a “TRUTH TEST,” what it actually tells its audience—clearly, helpfully—is where and how Coffman’s ad is unfair.
Related stories:
“What the factcheckers get wrong”
- 1
- 2
Here's how to stop it all. Stop allowing these PAC's to freely send whatever they want. Spell out in plain and simple terms who is behind the money to produce the drivel. And, have them stop using misleading names, like 'Center For American Truth In Propaganda Produced Only To Secure A Vote To Make Me Money".
#1 Posted by GunGuy, CJR on Wed 17 Oct 2012 at 02:21 PM