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.