Bill Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth

from the politifact-not-good-enough-for-you? dept

Mon, May 16th 2011 8:44am — Mike Masnick

Now, it's certainly true that the so-called "fourth estate" -- the press -- often isn't very good at fact checking. They're especially bad at fact checking politicians, and the popular "view from nowhere" often means that rather than pointing out where a politician has lied, they feel that as long as they give "the other side" equal time, they've done their job. However, do we really need a federal fact checking agency? That appears to be the opinion of former President Bill Clinton who suggested such an agency would be a good use of taxpayer money:

"Let's say the U.S. did it, it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn't think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out," Clinton said.

"That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors" he said. "And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it's a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money."

But why would that be a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money, when others are already trying to do that? We have operations like FactCheck.org and Politifact, both run by respected operations, and both of which have done pretty well from what I've seen. Of course, this sort of thing could also already be considered part of the GAO's mandate, as it's pretty well respected for not falling for political spin in its reports, but for digging in and getting things right. Of course, that hasn't stopped much of the government from ignoring the GAO's position on things.

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: bill clinton, fact checking, ministry of truth, taxpayers

39 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 8:03am

Why not just have a chip installed that stops you from thinking, while you're at it? After all, if you think, you lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 8:38am

This is astounding...
You've got to love the kind hillbilly jackass that can dream up the idea of an INDEPENDENT organization and then suggest that they should be part of the Federal government. That's the kind of logical two-step that makes my testicles retreat up into my perineum.

Other equally logical proposals include:

-An organization for promoting open source software chaired by Bill Gates

-A human rights council lead by Ghadaffi

-An educational TV show on the basics of healthy cooking hosted by Jeffrey Dahmer

-A monthly periodical on proper cigar ettiquette with Editor and Chief Bill Clinton
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShellMG, 16 May 2011 @ 9:07am

Dark Helmet, you listed Ghadaffi knowing Libya was elected to head the UN Council of Civil Rights, correct?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2672029.stm

And I'm not planning to look for a Dahmer cookbook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:11am

Re:
Darn, and I was hoping to point that out to him! Ah well, you beat me to it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:13am

Re: This is astounding...
Kind of a funny if it weren't true but I believe Libya was added to the UN human rights council this spring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:17am

Re: Re:
You know, and I actually knew that too, but for some reason my brain took that knowledge, examined it, sniffed it's hindquarters, and then laughed maniacally at the thought that it could even be true.

Stupid world, always being more fucked up than the bullshit I dream up in my head....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:20am

Re: Re: Re:
I believe a couple other iron fisted dictators that are activly opressing their own people are also on that commision so maybe it was irony week at the UN or something when they thought that one up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:35am

Except the GAO couldn't do it; the study Masnick loves to cite has been debunked as not being useful research:

http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/gao-still-stonewalling-on-sources-for-s tealing-is-good-report/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:41am

Mr. Bill I'm-Not-Sleeping-With-Monica-Lewinsky Clinton wants a Federal Ministry of Truth that is independent. Sorta like saying an "honest" cop wants an accountability office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:44am

Re:
Looks like the ministry of truth needs to look over that report. Smells of BS to me. But then again both reports are BS, at least we admit ours is.

Now, please keep your comments relevant to the current article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS78 (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:48am

I don't want my tax dollars going to that!

*downs a glass of Victory gin in protest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:51am

Bill Clinton...

Truth...

Please tell me this is a very late April Fool's post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Gisleson (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:52am

I don't think Clinton's solution makes any sense, but you should know that both Politifact and FactCheck have been ripped by other factcheck orgs for being exceptionally establishment-oriented. Politifact seems to go well out of its way to give breaks to Republicans not named Michele Bachmann while very aggressively parsing statements made by liberals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:52am

"Of course, this sort of thing could also already be considered part of the GAO's mandate"

What we need here is a redundancy department of redundancy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cgt (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:03am

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:15am

Even if it were possible, just how long would it remain "independent"?

Why would it be immune from regulatory capture or judicial capture?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zegota (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:16am

Jeez
Good lord, sometimes the libertarian paranoia here is palpable.

"You know, maybe kicking some taxpayer money to a factchecking organization wouldn't be a terrible idea."

"OMG!!! 1984!!! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cgt (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:34am

Re: Jeez
Taxation is theft. Using stolen money for anything is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:58am

Info as an alternative to new laws
While I don't think that we need a federally funded agency dedicated to fact checking the Internet, I don't see a problem with the governement publishing and promoting the distribution of useful information, part of which could be debunking misnformation. In fact, it might even be a better solution than the default behavior of politicians faced with the latest issue "threatening" the public today, which is to create some stupid new law.

What if there was a new tool in their toolbox to allow for addressing these issues without a new law? I personally wouldn't have a problem with a government agency that proactively tried to publish the results of the research that the government already pays for. For example, would you rather have a new law that bans texting while driving or some government agency buying some web and TV ads explaining the associated dangers? And yes, any organization can be politicized, but even a biased message is better than a ban.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisB (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Jeez
> Taxation is theft.

"Hey look, I got all my taxes back! Finally, no more theft by taxation. Oh wait, the sewers are backed up and the road in front of my house is full of potholes. Hey guys, why don't we get together, pool our money, and get someone to provide services to us at a reasonable cost. Thank god we got rid of the government so we'd have money to do this."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShellMG, 16 May 2011 @ 11:09am

Re: Info as an alternative to new laws
Hulser, do you really want money-dependent politicians to define the phrase "useful information"? What are the criteria used to define the parameters and which department would be responsible for posting said information? Or would there be one central department where everything is screened for "approval" or would each agency be responsible for its own postings...funded by the taxpayer? This could be a new government agency of massive proportions.

Sorry, I'm married to a red-tape entangled bureaucrat who tries to work in spite of the tape.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 11:21am

Re: This is astounding...
- A Nobel Peace prize for Barack Obama
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cgt (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Re: Jeez
The difference is that it would be voluntary and there would be competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Lockyear, 16 May 2011 @ 11:30am

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is
Tax-payer funded agencies / departments always end up being controlled by the politicians! This would be no different. And herein "lies" the problem.

Bill Clinton demonstrated with his "not sex", oral sex, sex scandal that truth, for politicians, is a matter of definition. (It was Bill Clinton after all who famously said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").

A more scary example:
During the Bush regime, the definition of torture was adjusted so that that it required �serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,� ... punching someone in the stomach or asphyxiating them with a wet sack was okay provided that the victim didn't die or suffer permanent damage.

In others words, torture was not torture because the US government said so... how would a US government fact checking agency deal with such "facts"? How would a US government fact checking agency deal with conveniently classified facts?

If the US wants a fact-checking agency they should just send a donation to Wikileaks and the people of the world can decided for themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 11:37am

For the sake of being balanced, can we have a ministry of lies too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 11:39am

Re: Re: Info as an alternative to new laws
Hulser, do you really want money-dependent politicians to define the phrase "useful information"?

Absolutely yes. Because it's the lesser of the two evils between stupid laws and biased PSAs.

What are the criteria used to define the parameters and which department would be responsible for posting said information?

Let Congress argue and bicker over which topics to promote or what misinformation to debunk. The more time they're doing this, the less time they'll have to create stupid new laws that have a direct impact on what I can and can't do.

Have you head the expression, "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."? Well, this applies to Congress. The only tool that they have is creating a new law. In order to justify their own existance, politicians have to create new laws. After passing yet another stupid new law, members of Congress feel like they can go back to their home state and say, "See what I did! I helped! I passed a new law that solves [insert panic topic de jour here]."

This need for justification isn't going to go away. Like children, we have to give Congress something to do to keep them occupied so that they don't get themselves (and more importantly, us) into trouble. If this means creating a government agency, even a large one, the mission of which was to publish information and debunk misinformation, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: This is astounding...
Haha +10 dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 12:05pm

Re:
I'd rather my tax dollars go to the Department of Truth as opposed to DHS or a few other things, like subsidies for oil/coal/corn/RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
so, 16 May 2011 @ 12:39pm

the US are bankrupt and more agencies are popping us spending what you no longer have : money

or is he still trying to suppress "clintonfuck�r, the game" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 16 May 2011 @ 12:42pm

Fairness Doctrine
Or you could re-establish the Fairness Doctrine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Craig S, 16 May 2011 @ 12:55pm

Speaking of fact checking...
It disturbs me how many websites, including this one, have taken this story and run with it as if Bill Clinton has this on his agenda and is just out to cost taxpayers more money. Did anyone actually see the interview or read the transcritps? The whole thing was about business and media credibility, and how dangerously simple it is for troves of blogs and other sites to just post blatantly false stories which troves of people immediately consume as absolute truth.

In this case, he was just giving an on-the-spot hypothetical solution in response to a question. But here we are with news sites and blogs everywhere spinning it like he's out there ready to waste our money and needs to be stopped at once! I'm definitely not a Clinton fan, but talk about fact-checking; the sheer irony here is making me dizzy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:07pm

"..Clinton Thinks The Internet Needs A Taxpayer Funded Ministry Of Truth"
Clinton is as clueless as a fencepost. Clinton is more about fiction, really. He's also a con-artist and a damn liar when it comes to 'facts'. We don't need any more taxes in this screwed-up economy. The US is already looking more and more like a third-world country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re:
I'm not backing either one, or opposing you, but I am curious to see the "other factcheck orgs"! Links/references please!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re: Speaking of fact checking...
The problem here is that Clinton is still wired into Washington and his wife has expressed her displeasure with Wikileaks in particular.

There's no reason to believe that someone in Washington won't try to run with this spectacularly bad idea. And the fact that people are giving him a pass for even suggesting that the government start policing the internet for "facts" and "truth" is even more disturbing.

Hypothetical or no, this needs to be ridiculed into the ground and have a heavy coating of ridicule salt scattered all over it until the idea dies its deserving death.

The internet is fairly self-regulating. After all, you don't believe every piece of chainmail forwarded to you, do you? So why would anyone even think that we need someone (especially an oxymoronic monstrosity like an "independent federal agency") to help us steer clear of all the lies and rumors on the internet?

Using taxpayer dollars is worrying, but not nearly as worrying as the idea itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re: Jeez
You sincerely believe that the government can be trusted with this task? That there wouldn't be any abuse or downside or unexpected consequences?

I've got an idea: let Bill Clinton pay for it. If he's so sure the internet needs "truth" this badly, let him go ahead and front the money for it. If it's such a great idea, why is he even bothering dragging the taxpayers into it? That's only going to slow the implementation down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 3:25pm

Re:
We took care of that over 200 years ago, where have you been?

It's called "Congress"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idobek (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 2:45am

The BBC's "Truth"
If you want to hold up the BBC as something to emulate in a "Ministry of Truth" you might want to find out how true people think there "truths" are. Googling "bbc truth" returns a link to http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ on the first page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 7:36am

Re: This is astounding...
News by Fox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 19 May 2011 @ 8:01am

Truth
Clinton could have used one of these during his days in the oval office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]