« New at CJR: The need for better “fiscal cliff” reporting | Main | New at CJR: Beware Green Lantern thinking on guns »

December 11, 2012

Comments

I appreciate your attempts at balance Brendan, going back to your Spinasity days, but in my view, much of the "fact checking" done in this election cycle was basically just opinion writing not checking of actual facts. Over and over again some fact checker would find that although everything (or nearly everything) a candidate said was a true verifiable fact, they would assign some sort of "false" rating because they disagreed that the facts supported whatever conclusion the candidate came to.

That is opining on facts, not checking them.

This tendency to use the "fact-checking" position to argue sides on the part of some prominent media outlets basically made *all* fact-checking suspect in my mind and makes you wonder "who is checking the fact-checkers". No-one has time to follow that down the rabbit-hole so my approach was to ignore them all and if I really wanted to know the facts to dig on my own.

I agree this is sometimes a problem. Examples?

The comments to this entry are closed.