Turns Out People Really Like It When The Press Fact Checks, Rather Than Just Reporting What Everyone Said

from the duh dept

Thu, May 20th 2010 5:48pm — Mike Masnick

This really shouldn't surprise anyone, but hopefully this means that more folks in the press will realize a simple point: their job isn't just to report on what both sides said, but to say directly when someone is lying or being misleading. The AP, which has had some issues in this department in the past, has started aggressively fact checking politicians and now claims that those fact check pieces are the most popular pieces they do. They're the most clicked and the most linked to stories. This is good news. One of the major frustrations with the press is how they seem to just reprint press releases and talking points, rather than challenging questionable claims. If they start to realize that people really do look to the press to tell them who's being truthful, perhaps some of these publications wouldn't be struggling quite so much.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fact checking, journalism, news

49 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dementia (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 6:05pm

Now if they will just start fact checking the RIAA's of the world.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 20 May 2010 @ 6:10pm

it's a fine line
Checking verifiable facts is absolutely an important role for the press, but it also becomes an easy path for injecting their own opinion alongside the subject's. Even if it's selection bias in checking one person's words more thoroughly than another's, a reporter has to be very careful to not devolve into just another editorialist looking for places to twist the truth to fit an agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:05pm
  
  Re: it's a fine line
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:08pm
    
    Re: Re: it's a fine line
    Well that was dumb on my part. It is supposed to be the job of the press to check the facts. If it was always done you wouldn't worry about bias
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David T, 20 May 2010 @ 6:18pm

But if they start calling politicians on lies, the newspapers would no longer be "independent" and "neutral." They would have to *gasp* offer an analysis... That's work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheOldProfessor (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re: Calling politicians on lies
  No, David. Having to "offer an analysis" is not the barrier to newspapers calling politicians on lies. Think a moment -- it's pretty obvious. If newspapers called politicians on every lie they speak, the forests of American would be depleted in no more than a couple of years -- five at the most. Greenpeace and all of us who enjoy sitting in the shade of a beautiful tree would be inconsolable. Don't feel bad David. You're probably just still young enough to not have the obvious answer occur to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Calling politicians on lies
    You're either missing your sarcmarc or you're too old to realize that the average person doesn't get their news from dead trees.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 11:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Calling politicians on lies
      More newspaper sales = greater deforestation?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hank Hill, 21 May 2010 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Calling politicians on lies
        Thats just asinine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calling politicians on lies
        indeed. it should be 'more newspaper sales = more newspapers printed = more paper required = deforestation'.
        
        the stripy one missed some steps :)
        
        (please note: i'm half joking here, but the insult was uncalled for unless it was a joke i failed to understand :) )
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re: Calling politicians on lies
    If newspapers called politicians on every lie they speak, the forests of American would be depleted in no more than a couple of years -- five at the most. Greenpeace and all of us who enjoy sitting in the shade of a beautiful tree would be inconsolable.
    
    if only there was a way to take printed news paper and print to it again, like a way to RE-peat the CYCLE of printing using less new paper than the time before.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  ... so everytime a politician speaks we have to be told how he or she telling a lie. I thought we knew that already.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 20 May 2010 @ 6:20pm

Great - BUT
This is a great, but just because someone does fact checking doesn't mean the results are ironclad, conclusive or "the truth".

I've seen plenty of investigative type reporting that ignore key elements, approached the issue from a bias perspective and ended up with promoting falsehoods.

What we need is a scientific discipline/approach to the news and while this is a nice step forward, it still isn't close to the real cure. I would also argue that the typical reporter isn't 'wired properly' to be a scientist. Most are wired with a European/Socialist view of the world.

Freedom

P.S. Where are the politicians that stand up and say, these are my core principles and every decision I make as your representative will be guided by these principles. Where is the honor of those in public service? We blame our representatives, but aren't they just a reflection of us? If we want true change in government, the first job is rebuild our core values and then government will reflect what we have become. Exchanging one set of radical politicians for another is treating the symptom and not the disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re: Great - BUT
  doesn't matter. some fact checking is still better than just requoting bogus stats from RIAA and MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:30pm
  
  Re: Great - BUT
  I've seen plenty of investigative type reporting that ignore key elements, approached the issue from a bias perspective and ended up with promoting falsehoods.
  
  That's most reporting today.
  
  I stopped being amazed long ago when I see papers and news chock full of one-sided-ness, like anything on copyright or homeschooling.
  
  It's not even he-said, she-said. It's just he-said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:38pm
  
  Re: Great - BUT
  Where are the politicians that stand up and say, these are my core principles and every decision I make as your representative will be guided by these principles. Where is the honor of those in public service?
  
  long gone my friend.... long gone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:17pm
  
  Re: Great - BUT
  Why would a scientific approach make a difference? It's not like science is never wrong or has a lock on truth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheOldProfessor (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:43pm
  
  Re: Great - BUT
  "Exchanging one set of radical politicians for another is treating the symptom and not the disease."
  ___________________________________________]
  
  If we are simply doing an exchange, then it's evidence that the "dumbing" of America so often spoken of is fact rather than theory. We have plenty of good candidates, but we do not work hard enough at locating them and promoting them. As a result, the big money folks (now empowered by the Supreme Court as never before) flood the media for their minions, and the American public cuts its own proverbial throat every two years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 6:54pm

"The AP... has started aggressively fact checking politicians and now claims that those fact check pieces are the most popular pieces they do"

Wow. The news media are run by complete idiots. Jon Stewart has been doing exactly that since 1999. Over a fricken decade. And now finally the "mainstream" press is catching on?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 7:06pm

first, i have to wonder: mike, did you check this fact out, or did you just reprint it verbatim? perhaps a little investigation would be order, right?

second, more and more people are enjoying sites like huffington and the drudge report, which are somewhat light on balance. heck, they love rush limbaugh (and I am sure mikey does too!), and rush is incredibly good at not letting the truth get in the way of a good out of context nugget. its sort of how this place works, i think. would someone care to check for facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 7:20pm
  
  Re:
  You suck at trolling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re:
  Remember that one time TAM used facts to advance his points? Or was that a dream?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 7:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Twas a dream
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    'twas nought but misty memory
    of hazy delusion and fantasy
    a dream
    divorced from all reality.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:34pm
  
  Re:
  Dude, Mike isn't a reporter, and this isn't a news site.
  
  That being said, his posts have a much higher rate of accuracy, and the posters don't cover it up when they're wrong. They add an edit so everyone can see what happened.
  
  So they're not only usually right, they're also honest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 7:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    rose, rush limbaugh is incredibly accurate, but his accuracy comes because he ignores everything that surrounds his chosen fact. so while he has a high accuracy rate, he is also very misleading at times. i think mikey does the same thing. narrowly looking at things can provide an 'honest' look at a topic, but it isnt the whole truth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 7:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And then you come along and call Mike out by providing nothing of substance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hi mike. i point out things in many threads, you just choose to ignore them, or pee down on high and act all smarmy. that is okay, it is up to you. you really should log on as yourself though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Masnick Sidekick Strikes Again!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Coming from TAM, who routinely ignores counter-arguments to his flawed points with paranoid conspiracy rhetoric.
        
        Amusing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's surrounded by mikes!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 6:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did someone make infinite Mike copies? Does that mean all Mikes are now free?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 1:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... why not? it's no worse than what most politicians come out with, and they regularly get surrounded by mikes...
        
        also cameras.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - accuracy ?, 20 May 2010 @ 8:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "rush limbaugh is incredibly accurate"
      
      Rush Limbaugh: Oil Spill Was Deliberate Act By Environmentalists
      
      http://gawker.com/5529289/rush-limbaugh-oil-spill-was-deliberate-act-by-environ mentalists
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TheOldProfessor (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Leaking top secret info
        Limbaugh should be jailed. Revealing that environmentalists sabotaged the pipe at the well head 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf will let everyone figure out what the environmentalists have been doing with those trained dolphins that escaped from the Homeland Security folks. They sent them to Somalia for specialized training in deep water suicide missions and fitted them with dolphin-sized explosive vests. I'll bet Limbaugh never thought I could figure out what really happened. I've also discovered that Mitch McConnell was the mastermind who manipulated the environmentalists into thinking they were striking a blow for the environment by causing an automatic shutdown with the blast. There! That ought to keep Rush and the ditto heads busy for a day or two.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TheOldProfessor (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
      Concerned advice to Anonymous C.: If you think Limbaugh is "incredibly accurate" please have your hearing checked. A hearing loss in the range of RL's voice is a serious health issue. Here's hoping it's just wax buildup caused by all the bombast.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
        you miss the point. limbaugh is incredibly accurate on the very small facts he works from. his theories and concepts are wrong, but they all trace back to a grain of truth. he is very accurate. if he says "omaba said this", the quote is true, but taken incredibly out of context. the bp oil spill thing probably tracks back to a claim made by a group, a statement, whatever. it all tracks back to being truthful at it's root. it is my point about mikey, he does the same thing. he starts with a grain of truth, and builds a mountain on top of it. the mountain is made of poo most of the time, but under it all is a grain of truth that cannot be argued. thus, he plays the truth card and everyone swallows the mountain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pathetic troll is pathetic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:23pm
    
    Re: Re:Dude, Mike isn't a reporter, and this isn't a news site.
    but it could be , and should be. It is mike's free-choice. And I for the life of me can't figure out why he does not work to make techdirt a forum for serious policy discussion. He gets the readship, but the high-end academic and profressional readers do not bother posting, as the threads often just turn into useless drival -- even w/o me helping.
    
    There are very few good forums to address the many interesting Mike does raise in his postings. Mike should look to find a way to have more high-end academic and professional readers join the threads , without always being called a Moron -- or worse -, but some high school kid on LSD
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:Dude, Mike isn't a reporter, and this isn't a news site.
      Yeah, why doesn't Mike make Techdirt boring? I will never figure it out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:Dude, Mike isn't a reporter, and this isn't a news site.
      And I for the life of me can't figure out why he does not work to make techdirt a forum for serious policy discussion.
      
      For the life of most of us, we can't figure out why various industry individuals do not work to find other avenues for increasing revenue than government welfare, mass litigation and instantly calling everyone a thief. Never stopped them.
      
      He gets the readship, but the high-end academic and profressional readers do not bother posting
      
      Why would they need to bother with trolls insistent that Mike is always wrong?
      
      the threads often just turn into useless drival -- even w/o me helping
      
      Are you conceding that your helping is contributory to useless [sic] drival?
      
      There are very few good forums to address the many interesting Mike does raise in his postings.
      
      If you are aware that few good forums exist, then it would help if you suggested some.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AMusingFool (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:29pm

And who said it...
This is a big, and important, step in the right direction. After all, if they just repeat what the government says (which is what they've been doing for the past ten years), then there is no value added. If there is no value added, then the business has no reason to exist. You'd think they'd have noticed this.

Another important step, stop using anonymous sourcing, particularly when repeating the government line. If it's a whistleblower, sure, they deserve all the anonymity they can get, but otherwise? We deserve to know from which 'administration official with knowledge of the discussion' we're hearing.

@freedom... There are plenty of scientists who are both European and Socialist. I'm not sure exactly what dichotomy you're trying to draw there, but that one didn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 20 May 2010 @ 9:17pm

It's not just fact checking
It's also skew.

I think skew has much more to do with the reason for much of newspapers failings economically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:58am

You're all lost. Have fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 6:54am
  
  Re:
  I was. Until you told me I was lost! Where the f*** am I?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:21am

No fact checking is one of the reasons I refuse to pay for news anymore. Why should I pay to listen/read news from a shill? Lack of disclosure is another huge problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spanky, 21 May 2010 @ 11:44am

re
Good to see that the news media is rediscovering journalism. Next thing you know, they'll start requiring degrees to work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 21 May 2010 @ 9:11pm

But Facts Are Not “Fair And Balanced”
Trouble is, the facts on their own do not provide “fair and balanced” coverage of an issue. You need someone selecting the right facts and presenting them in the right way, so people know what to think. Otherwise how are people supposed to make up their own minds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 24 May 2010 @ 5:24am

Media corporations have known for ages that people like this sort of thing, it's kind of obvious. But why would corporations question politicians from the two corporate political parties? It's just not in their self-interest to bite the hand that feeds them. Although perhaps it would be more apt to say to punish the dog that they feed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]