I’ve seen quite a few articles on fact-checking recently without commenting on any of them. In my opinion fact-checking columns jumped the shark when one of them, after proclaiming something “mostly true”, subsequently declared it the “lie of the year”. They should have just closed up shop.
In my opinion, one mistake should not doom someone. Also, Keynes had a quote about that you do when you discover new facts.
Steve
So, when you take your car to a mechanic and the mechanic proceeds to total your car, do you take your new car to the same mechanic?
I’m an amateur; the newspaper-run fact-checking sites are professionals. When I get something wrong, it’s reasonable to forgive me. When they get something wrong, not so much. Getting it right was their only job and when they can’t get it right for structural reasons for goodness sake I think it points to a fundamental problem in the fact-checking model.
Would this be the mechanic who saved my life many times by finding mistakes other mechanics made, or someone I never saw before? Part of the problem here is that both political parties have media professionals who are good at obscuring and spinning stuff. I think the job is harder than it used to be. I really don’t expect them to get it right every time, the first time in this kind of atmosphere. I also worry that as things are it is much too easy to say that you are going to decide to not believe anyone, even those who are right 99% of the time as a way to justify believing whatever you want.
Steve
@steve, that Keynes quote is about facts changing (now, it’s raining, now it’s not and my opinion on whether to wear a raincoat will change as well), not facts being misrepresented.
The fundamental problem, in my view, is that too many people, particularly journalists, do not understand the difference between facts, opinions about facts, analysis, expert opinion, etc.
In other words, most of the “fact checking” is not actually about facts.