Help PolitiFact Get The Facts Right
By K. Daniel Glover | June 17, 2009
PolitiFact, a service launched in the summer of 2007 to either confirm or refute the claims of presidential candidates, has broadened its mission to include fact checks of pundits.
The idea has potential. Pundits across the political spectrum have a knack for spinning facts in their favor, so a niche definitely exists for a truly neutral observer to fill. PolitiFact also can make a legitimate claim to being just such an observer because of its ties to Congressional Quarterly. I worked at CQ nearly seven years after moving to Washington, so I know firsthand that there isn't a more fair, balanced and nonpartisan news organization in America.
But PolitiFact's record as a watchdog pundit is suspect so far. The ratio of fact checks is running almost 4-1 against right-leaning commentators, and a third of the nine critiques have been aimed at Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio.
PolitiFact has accused Limbaugh of one falsehood and one "barely true" argument but gave him a "mostly true" grade for his analysis of how Senate Republicans could use parliamentary procedures to block votes on judicial nominees. PolitiFact also has refuted claims made by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.
The Web site adopted particularly harsh language for Scarborough, mocking him with the rhetorical question, "Do they pay Joe to make claims like this?"
Keith Olbermann, whose name has become synonymous with media stupidity, and Rachel Maddow, both far-left talkers on MSNBC, are the only liberals critiqued by PolitiFact to date -- and Olbermann earned a "mostly true" rating. That's too bad because there is plenty of punditry on the left ripe for the fact-checking.
Think of how much fun PolitiFact could have had when commentators like Olbermann and Maddow, as well as news hosts like CNN's Anderson Cooper, embraced distortions of the "tea party" movement earlier this year. And now that healthcare policy is at the top of the agenda, all kinds of bogus statistics are making their way into the media.
PolitiFact will be doing the public a great service if it casts a bright light on the erroneous facts parroted by journalists and commentators as they report on health care and other policies.
The good news is that PolitiFact is taking suggestions. So here's an admonition to the army of conservative citizen watchdogs already fact-checking the liberal media: Send your tips to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or tweet them to @politifact.
Let the watchdogs know when you hear liberal pundits spouting factually questionable data or telling outright lies. And if PolitiFact acts on your tip, link back to the story and spread the word to other bloggers and activists.
Conservatives will benefit if a neutral watchdog like PolitiFact does its job well in fact-checking commentators with large national audiences.
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
5 Comments | Post a Comment
“Neutral and accurate watchdog” in the American media?
Give me a break!
The American media is so biased in favour of Obama it is nauseating!
I am amazed that so few Americans even seem to notice!
Yogi 13
It would certainly be great if there could be “... a truly neutral, accurate watchdog ...” (What much of the print media, I believe, once was.)
But, today, EVERYBODY (and EVERY MEDIUM) is peddling some sort of agenda that ostensibly endears her/him/it to some pre-determined niche market - - as defined by some marketing consultants making the claim that appealing to that specific mini- or micro-market will be best for that medium’s bottom line. There is no $$$ in “neutral” today!
(I mean, does anybody REALLY believe Fox News is less-favorable to the GOPs than is MSNBC to the DEMs? Every medium is a Music Man today - definitely peddling something or other to the opportunity seekers of River City.)
The only media experts in the world exist in Blogs. Any one can be Mrs & Mr Perfect here. Fire all those others. They do not know what they are talking about.
If I flipped a coin 9 times and it came up heads 6 times and tails 3 times would you conclude that the coin is strongly biased toward heads? Of course not because a sample size of 9 is completely inadequate to draw any such conclusion. Charging Politifact with a liberal bias just because 6 of 9 comments on political pundits charged conservatives with inaccuracies is irresponsible journalism. Why don’t you address their record since inception on all political figures and give us some hard facts?
June 18 at 4:44 pm | #1 | Link
I like the idea of PolitiFact in theory, but as you have pointed out there have been some flaws in their approach thus far. It would be great if they really emerged as a truly neutral, accurate watchdog.