Great article but the title is a little misleading. I was expecting analysis of the fact-checking culture in the modern day, the “fall” part in particular. The article ends up mostly being a history of facts in journalism.
Research departments work well because they are a supporting role. The author must correct inaccuracies, but it's still basically the author's voice.
Fact checkers who publish on their own are a problem. They can't resist bringing their own perspectives and arguments into the dicussion.
A lot of stuff is technically true but misleading. So the fact-checkers write something of the form:
"Pants on fire: technically true, but [inject rebuttal essay here]."
That's all fine except that it's done under the moral banner of correcting lies. People who disagree with the viewpoints of the fact checker are understandably put off when they to take this moral high ground.
>Early newspaper printers had more interest in opinion and polemic than objectivity.
Has this really changed? Does (can?) there actually exist an organization or person which can report just verified facts (if a "fact" is even possible at all)? Am I just getting old and cynical?
I've been watching the White House's COVID briefs in their entirety since I'm just sitting around at home. It's nice background noise while I work. It has been a fun but horrifying experience, having seen the entire presser, to then see which pieces get clipped by which organizations and in which context.
Each news org (pick your fav) is reporting the facts as they see them. They'll back up these facts with the little clips they pulled, or by referencing studies/papers (the "scientific literature" infallible after all as long as the conclusion matches what you need), if they're feeling really bold, they'll prove "facts" through a little in-article "math" which is, of course, based on the shoddiest of premises.
Almost all of their work in justifying their position with "facts" is undone by the simple act of seeing the source material, at which point the illusion is shattered, and everyone is just toeing the line.
> Does (can?) there actually exist an organization or person which can report just verified facts (if a "fact" is even possible at all)? Am I just getting old and cynical?
I think it could definitely be done, but as a commercial venture, I'm not sure how many people are interested in reading actual truth. There seems to be a rather strong distaste for it.
I'm quite curious to see if we see a noticeable change when Trump is out of office, I sure hope that event helps normalize things at least somewhat.
I don't understand the point hiring fact checkers if you're going to make shit up that contradicts what he says. Interpreting "hinting dog" to mean "sheep-herding dog" makes less sense than interpreting "hunting dog" as meaning "cat". At least cats hunt!
Knowing something about the 19th century press, it bares a lot more resemblance to today’s social media “bubbles”, hyperbole, and opinion driven journalism than the post WW2 media environment. Whether it was Frederick Douglass’s publications or the local political party backed newspaper - newspapers that existed to promote their agenda more than to give some objective reporting on the facts.
Reminds me of the protests against Justice Kavanaugh. Some (semi-professional) protest groups prepared generic protest posters, then filled in the nominee's name later.
They don't even bother to say who "witnessed" that or back it up with any other "accounts." Seems like they just expect you to believe it at face value without any evidence whatsoever.
If you follow the last tidbit and Google "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court", Google will bring up plenty of reputable media sources that ran it.
In this case, it was 'The Womens March' that had a template protest sign ready, but incredibly neglected to fill in the blank with the nominee's name.
