Checking the Checkers

or quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Recently, RealClearPolitics has begun an initiative to monitor the various fact-checking sites. In a recent piece they singled out Snopes.com for praise:

Snopes deserves praise because of the six sites we are examining — which are the same ones helping Facebook determine what you see on your feed — we have found that it is the least likely to “fact-check” matters of opinion. It is impossible to verify a subjective matter, so “fact-checking” opinions is a fool’s errand. It is also a surefire way to introduce bias into the fact-checking process, as the natural counter to an opinion is often another opinion.

We have found that since we started our project, Snopes has fact-checked opinions only 2 percent of the time. In other words, 98 percent of the time it sticks to matters of verifiable fact. Such as achievement is even more remarkable given that during this period, Snopes has produced the second-most articles of the six fact-checking outfits. The Weekly Standard comes in next most reliably at 95 percent, but it published only 44 fact checks to Snopes’ 400. Only PolitiFact released more fact checks than Snopes since we started Fact Check Review — 434 — and it comes in fourth place at 85 percent.

While Snopes deserves credit for its “just the facts, ma’am” approach to selecting its subjects, we have observed anecdotally that Snopes writers are in the habit of injecting editorial language or opinions into their fact checks. For instance, they called an unproven claim on knife crimes in London “heavy on Islam-blaming but light on evidence.” They labeled a questionable article on supposed “animal brothels” in Germany a “transparent attempt to spark fear and hatred.”

I think there’s a “camel in the tent” dynamics to the fact-checking sites. While they probably all begin with benign intentions since human beings have opinions and prejudices and the present “point of view” school of journalistic writing encourages the writer to air his or her prejudices, veering into opinion, as RealClearPolitics notes, is inevitable. From there it’s just a short hop to fact-checking opinions and an erstwhile fact-checking site is now another editorial page.

I wish the folks at RealClearPolitics luck. We could use an empirical measure of the bias or lack of it by presume fact-checking sites but I don’t have my hopes up.