Checking the fact checkers

There has been a lot of talk about fact checkers; more than I remember in any past election season.

Candidates running for president have always had creative versions of the truth.

This is inevitable given the constant media attention, demanding schedule and scrutiny of every word. Spinning is a timeless political trope.

The way we define “un-truths” affects the way we see politicians. Are these small blunders? Innocent spin? Outrageous lies? Does a candidate acknowledge their “un-truths?” When does it become an issue in an election? Data suggests that it’s already become one for voters.

The media is obsessed with outing candidates for their “misstatements,” “mischaracterizations,” “creative license,” and “erroneous facts.” But when the New York Times used the word “liar,” it was a big deal.

Although both candidates may fudge the details, Donald Trump has been the primary target of journalism on the subject. It’s not hard to see why; he makes it so easy. On September 25, Politico calculated Trump’s “falsehood rate” to be one per 3 minutes and 15 seconds. This is considerably worse than his previous rate of one every 5 minutes in March.

The fact that we calculate this rate shows that it matters to someone. Given this, fact checking is the latest campaign buzzword. Cited by both candidates in the last debate, the concept offers a veneer of credibility. But how honest is it? Are fact checkers just another spin machine?

There are lots of fact checkers: the “non-partisan organizations: Politifact, FactCheck.org, the journalism organizations: AP, The Washington Post, NPR, the New York Times, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, and the candidates. During the debate, Clinton and Trump both referred to live fact checking on their websites.

I read the fact checking sites so you don’t have to. Some observations:

• Clinton’s fact checker is called “Literally Trump,” and reads like a Tumblr lineup of Donald’s most outrageous quotes with links to the source material. It serves its intended shock value but offers no examination of external evidence or context.

• I couldn’t find a fact checker on Trump’s site, despite his claims during the debate to the contrary. (Neither could NPR, who fact-checked this claim).

• The Washington Post and FactCheck.org earn high marks for being thorough, citing and linking their sources, and providing context to the information.

• NPR’s use of fact-checking within the transcript of the debate also earns high marks. It provides context for the information and more than once, reminded me that yes, this topic was addressed.

• I was disappointed in Politifact’s lack of context in their fact checking (for a non-partisan organization, I expected better). They frequently fact checked a single line of the debate rather than an exchange between the candidates, overlooking important technicalities. This was the case for crime statistics cited in relation to stop and frisk. FactCheck.org, provides a top-notch explanation of how Clinton and Trump are both right.

There was consensus around a number of issues that deserved to be fact-checked. Other sites had checks where it didn’t occur to me that they were needed (Was equal pay discussed? I don’t remember, but FactCheck.org and NPR caught it). 

The consensus big issues were:

• Trump paying income taxes (WE DON’T KNOW because we don’t have the returns)
• Ford moving jobs to Mexico (a resounding FALSE on this one)
• Trump calling climate change a hoax (TRUE, although he said it was a joke)
• Clinton starting birther rumors (FALSE, there is only rumor, no evidence)
• Trump being against the Iraq War (FALSE, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt here by saying that his endorsement was weak at best)
• Stop and frisk and crime statistics (COMPLICATED, I know that's not fair but its true)
• Clinton’s “gold standard” for TPP (TRUE)
• Candidate’s promises regarding tax and jobs plans (COMPLICATED)
• Trump’s complaints about NATO (COMPLICATED)
• Trump’s complaints about NAFTA (mostly FALSE)
• $1 million loan from Trump Sr. (FALSE)
• Economic recovery is a disaster, no jobs (mostly FALSE)

Fact-checking has its critics. According to our friends at Breitbart:

Ostensibly, “fact-checking” aims to help the public make more informed decisions... In practice, “fact-checking” is weighted against Republicans, largely because fact-checkers evaluate Republicans more than Democrats. When fact-checkers do scrutinize Democrats, the party of the left often enjoys the benefit of the doubt… Conversely, fact-checkers often punish Republicans for statements that are factually correct.

After the debate, Chris Christie claimed that fact-checkers have an agenda. A convenient response when your candidate has trouble with facts.

So, can we trust fact-checkers? A preponderance of the evidence indicates yes, as long as it is done by a non-profit, journalistic organization. To a large extent, the fact checkers agree on the major issues. Any incongruencies have more to do with the consideration of context and thus scope of research (thus my criticism of Politifact and praise of NPR and FactCheck.org). 

My recommendation? 

The fact checkers get stuff right. They offer clarity where news stories can obscure it, provide the information in simple language, and link to reliable sources. It’s the best tool we have for those who know where to look.

Then again, many Americans don’t care for facts. They’re inconvenient.

How to keep beleagured patrons coming back for more

We're tired. I'm tired. By the end of 90 minutes last night I would barely hold my head up. My brain effectively shut down. I felt like Peppermint Patty.



How does the media draw my attention back to the debate hours later?

With some of the greatest headlines.


There are conclusions: 

Post-debate poll: Hillary Clinton takes round one (CNN)

Clinton Won The Debate, Which Means She's Likely To Gain In The Polls (FiveThirtyEight) 

Pat Caddell: Breitbart/Gravis Post-Debate Flash Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Won Slightly; Trump Gains ‘Plausibility' (Breitbart)


And other conclusions:

Online polls declare Trump debate winner, despite media consensus for Clinton (Fox)

Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory … (Daily Mail)  

Voters Nationally Say Clinton Won Debate 51/40 (Public Policy Polling)

5 pieces of evidence that Hillary Clinton won the big presidential debate (Business Insider)


And the comedic:

Donald Trump's Online Trolls Turn on Their ‘God Emperor’ (Daily Beast)

The real Donald Trump showed up at Hofstra. Republicans must live with it (WaPo) 

Trump points fingers after shaky debate (Politico)

Trump's debate incompetence a slap in the face to his supporters (New York Post) 

Clinton zings Trump on microphone conspiracy theory (Politico)

#TrumpWon trends morning after debate -- with plenty of people laughing at the idea that Trump won (Mashable)


And this, which Colin will love:

The real winner of last night's debate? The memes (CNET)

The sky is not falling

Less than three hours from the first debate and the media machine is running in high gear. Anyone with access to a phone or television has been hounded over the high stakes of this first debate.

On Fox, cheerleaders promote the “Battle at Hofstra.”

MSNBC counts down the hours to “Clinton vs. Trump.”

This morning, Chris Cuomo on CNN said, “the hype is justified” and referred to the debate as a “battle of styles and facts.”

“It could be the greatest political show on Earth.” (CNN)

“first debate will be more like a mud wrestle than a policy contest” (The Sydney Morning Herald)

Global stock prices are falling, gold is rising, stars are tweeting, there’s advice for Donald, advice for Hillary, advice for Lester,  and plenty of people who are “outraged in advance.”

Why is the media losing its proverbial heads over 90 minutes of unscripted television?

Because they can.

Debates are good for media. Like sporting events, they force us to watch at the same time. Unlike sporting events, no single network has exclusive access. Debates are viewed across mediums and networks thus creating competition for viewers.  Networks must entice us to choose them, trust them, and ultimately be exposed to their advertising.

It’s all about the money. Plenty of journalists, editors and producers will tell you that. Hyping the event and creating urgency drives viewership. We want to be part of the democratic project that is debate, we need to jump on the bandwagon and join the estimated 100 million others who will tune in. Missing the Super Bowl of politics will make us social pariahs tomorrow at the water cooler, watching forlornly as other relive the best moments.

Debates are big money to networks. Ad prices are on par with some of the most popular prime time shows, $200,000 - $225,000 for a single 30 second spot during pre or post debate coverage. (There are no commercials during the actual debate).

Even better, networks are tying these coveted spots to larger election season packages, forcing companies to pay top dollar for a place at the table.

Smart strategy? Sure. Good for democracy? I’m not so sure.

There is limited evidence that debates matter. USA Today makes the case for yes; a review of political science research says no; and according to the New York Times, it’s complicated.

Monmouth University polling reveals the following:

Three-in-four voters (75%) plan to watch the first debate…Despite the anticipated interest, very few voters expect that the debate’s outcome will have an impact on their ultimate candidate choice.  Just 2% say it is very likely that the debate will cause them to change their mind or help them decide on their vote choice. Another 10% say the debate is somewhat likely to have an impact.  Fully 87% do not see any possibility where the debate will actually have an impact on their vote choice. 

Is the hype justified? Only tonight will tell. Impressions, gaffes, and one-liners can attach themselves to candidates like a tagalong sibling. (Just ask Richard Nixon). Will failure tonight end a presidential campaign? Unlikely

 

Debate moderating for Dummies

How to be a good debate moderator in 6 simple steps.

1.     Figure out your philosophy on fact checking. Are you going to call candidates out when they veer from the truth? Before making your decision, carefully weigh the arguments.

a.     Should the moderator serve as an impartial referee and point out when candidates veer from the truth? Viewers look to journalists to decipher fact from fiction and a debate moderator can be highly effective when he/she points out inconsistencies.

b.     But maybe you should take a hands-off approach and let the candidates fact check each other. Should a moderator simply  moderate and let the viewers decide for themselves who is telling the truth?

2.     If you decide to fact check, make sure you have the correct information. A Candy Crowley moment is a disaster. Use discretion when fact checking. Point out inconsistencies, but remember that the debate is about the candidates; it’s a major faux pas to talk more than they do.

3.     Do your research. Know the facts; research the candidates including their stances on the issues. Know the instances where they tend to be creative with the truth. Make factcheck.org and PolitiFact your Bible.  Know the controversies, gaffes, and debates. Have information in front of you in case you need it. Watch past debates.

4.     Prepare. Prepare. Prepare. This will require taking at least a week off. Gather your trusted producers, advisors, and reporters. Choose topics and write your questions carefully. Find areas where the candidates disagree. Ask questions that dig into those areas; verbal sparring is good. Be aware of your location and audience; it’s good to ask a question that will relate to them or the area. Have a murder board (what’s that? Hint: it involves role play). Tell your colleagues to be ruthless, aggressive, and challenging. Go over possible answers to your questions and how you will respond.

5.     Realize that you are not the star of the debate. It’s your job to tame the animal, control the discourse. No one wants to hear you talk too much. But, you still need to think about the ratings. Any perception of unfair moderation will haunt you for the rest of your days.

6.     Make peace with the criticism. You are going to be criticized no matter what. Someone is going to interpret your question as too partisan. Your job is going to be dissected and panned by some, and, hopefully, lauded by others. You are taking a risk but performing the highest level of journalistic duty. Don’t fuck it up.

(informed by Jake Tapper, Ari Fleisher, USA Today, the New York Times, CNN)

Millennial week

It’s millennial week, according to the Guardian. A week where Hillary Clinton turned up the heat on millennial voters, inviting this generally skeptical generation into the big tent. 

She’s got Twitter, and Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram, but Team Clinton doesn’t have the support it would like to see. Clinton is not the fiery Bernie Sanders; instead she is seen as a boring, conventional second choice. 

Here’s why: 

We are living in an age that is the product of austerity measures, deregulation, skyrocketing student-loan debt, high unemployment and a lack of affordable housing…So when a disheveled old white dude comes along and says our society is rigged for the rich, perpetual warfare is not the answer, and people of color should not be slaughtered by the police…you’re damn right we’re going to stand with him. (TIME) 

Clinton is failing to engage millennials.

They rallied around Obama, a candidate who evoked response through evocative language; a candidate that received their first presidential vote as they came of age. “Hope” and “Change we can count on” became a rallying cry for a new order, a better system. They are looking for that same emotional engagement from the next candidate. 

Clinton is not Barack Obama. She comes across as awkward, stilted and scripted. Millennials, who value authenticity and candidness, have a hard time connecting with someone who is criticized about her honesty and trustworthiness.

On the Politics for Humans podcast, John Favreau, a millennial himself, says that his generation responds to informal, conversational speech.  Obama was a natural at this; Clinton is continuing to improve. She needs to “meet them where they are and speak to them where they are. Figure out where young people are getting their news and information…Hillary Clinton needs to go on those shows and go to colleges and speak to young voters.” 

This week, she did just that.   

Exhibit 1: Rally at Temple 

She was honest and authentic: “I also know that even if you are totally opposed to Donald Trump, you still may have some questions about me. I get that.” She elucidated the point that millennials overwhelming agree on: “We have to stand up to this hate. We cannot let it go on.” And ended with a call to action: "The next 50 days will shape the next 50 years.”

Exhibit 2: Between Two Ferns (Watch it. It’s that good) 

Clinton delivered deadpan answers to Zach Galifianakis’ outrageous questions. She poked fun at herself, the media and her critics. Most important, she parodied the very criticism levied against her: that she is too scripted and robotic. Clinton comes across as funny and likeable, with a dry sense of humor.

According to the Census Bureau, millennials are now the largest generation of voters in America. They matter and both candidates know it. (Donald Trump has been using the word “revolution” lately. Sound like another candidate we know?). There are two aspects to willing millennials: 1.) winning their support and 2.) getting them to the polls. Ideologically, millennials are Clinton’s votes to lose. She’s got to continue engaging them on their level in an authentic way. She was witty and likable on Between the Ferns. 

She needs to do this more often.

Changing trend

It looks like things might be on the upswing for Hillary. Talking Points Memo's headline "Clinton Expands Lead Over Trump In New National Tracking Poll" and their poll tracker shows that her lead is expanding into more comfortable margins.

(I can't figure out how to imbed the little sucker without some security warning, so just click the link)

The gains are seen in the NBC News/SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll, which has switched its survey sample to likely voters over registered voters. (This makes sense; only people who actually vote will affect the race).

Here are the results:

Clinton has 50% support to Trump's 45% in a head to head poll. Even more interesting is that the margin of error is at +/-  1.2

These numbers provide a margin of error of the difference between Clinton and Trump support of +/- 2.4 using the method described here).

This margin of error is smaller than Clinton's 5 point lead meaning that the measured lead has statistical significance. This is the first poll I've seen this month that has statistical significance; good news for Clinton supporters.

Last week I posited that the Clinton camp needed to take a "wait and see" approach before getting too concerned. The next round of poll results will be key, but if they follow the trend of the NBC/SM survey, there's nothing to worry about.

In other news, Sens. Blumenthal and Murphy share their thoughts on polling. Good sound bites; hardly revolutionary.

Trump games the media

This post is going up a little late. It's telling that four days after the event is late, but that's another story. I kept getting distracted: Pepe the Frog; Skittles; Trump knew it was a bomb before anyone else did?!

Donald Trump knows how to play the media and last week he beat at their own game…twice.

The first instance was the lead-up to and appearance on Dr. Oz, the later of which has been called “a win”(CNN), a Potemkin physical (The New Yorker), “surreal” and “disquieting” (Vox), and “amazingly strange” (WaPo).

The story gets complicated from here.

1. The campaign announced that Trump would release his medical records.
2. It teased an appearance on Dr. Oz, presumed to share said records.
3. Trump decided not to share.
4. Then, he did.
5. Dr. Oz to gave him a clean bill of health based on two two sheets of paper and no actual examination.

The media breathlessly covered each twist and turn. Trump came out on top, masterfully.

He is playing you guys like a Stradivarius. Dominating news instead of Newsweek story, trump Foundation. Pathetic https://t.co/Avm6AhQZIP

— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) September 14, 2016

On Friday, the rigmarole began again.

1. Donald Trump said he would make a “big announcement” about his birther claims.
2. The media waited for more than an hour for said announcement, filling the footage of an empty podium with endless commentary.
3. Trump spoke for more than 20 minutes about his hotel and Medal of Honor recipients who endorsed him.
4. He admitted that President Obama was born in the United States.
5. He refused to let reporters accompany him on a press tour of his hotel
6. Press pool reporters were outraged and refused to cover the hotel tour
7. People were upset
   
   “The Media Should Stop Covering Trump” (HuffPo)
   “Trump Punks the Media” (Politico)
   “Trump plays the press…again” (Fox)
   “Trump manipulated the media and lied” (CNBC)
   “We got played” (Washington Post)
   “Donald Trump trolls the media” (Vanity Fair)  
   
   
8. The media continues covering Donald Trump

The guys on Keepin’ it 1600 said it best: The Trump campaign knows how to game the media (not that it’s very hard). “They basically know that if you throw the stick, the dog will go fetch it.”

Every.

Single.

Time.