‘Is fact-checking a trojan horse for left-wing partisans?’

Poynter’s Andrew Beaujon:

Fact-checking became a hot topic after Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Is fact-checking a trojan horse for left-wing partisans? Is it something members of the news media should do reflexively and in-person? And who will fact-check the fact-checkers of the fact-checkers?

Fact-checking just magically “became” a hot topic. It’s not that the Romney campaign, which stated it would not be run by fact-checkers, MADE fact-checking into the story, rather than Ryan’s numerous incorrect statements. It couldn’t be that starting a “debate” over fact-checking was in any way in the interests of the Romney campaign.

No, it just became a story all on its own.

But hey, I am a left-wing partisan. Maybe facts are just a Trojan horse for me to get my message out there.

A.

ps. Glenn Kessler’s response that you can’t possibly expect politicians to tell the truth which means you don’t have to call them out when they lie is just PRECIOUS.

7 thoughts on “‘Is fact-checking a trojan horse for left-wing partisans?’

  1. Snarki, child of Loki says:

    Well, you don’t have to specially note that republicans lie, because they LIE ALL THE TIME.
    About time that the dictionaries were updated:
    re·pub·li·can   [ri-puhb-li-kuhn]
    adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a republic.
    2. favoring a republic.
    3. fitting or appropriate for the citizen of a republic: a very republican notion.
    4. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Republican party.
    5. Enormous mendacious disembodied anus; a bloated lying asshole

  2. robertearle says:

    Politifact (the one I am most familiar with) OFTEN comes to conclusions that are confused and confusing and sometimes flat-out wrong.
    What makes them worthwhile is that they detail how they came to their conclusion and provide links to their ‘source’ material. So you can click through and read the source articles and quotes, etc for yourself…and then come to your own conclusion.
    Never ‘take their word for it’; always click through.

  3. MapleStreet says:

    As all politicians speak to put themselves into a good light, it then becomes easy to have an easy rejoinder any time there is a fact check.
    I’ ve talked with many a person putting forward an argument (often obtained by talk radio) and pointed out that it wasn’t true. They can just easily reply, “All Politicians Lie”, dismiss the fact check, and continue to hold their false accusations in good conscience.

  4. MapleStreet says:

    RE: your link to Kessler.
    I’ll go as far as to say that political conventions on both sides, in becomming a star studded extravaganza to mobilize the base, have become more of an infomercial (with intended jab at the irony that “info” is so daily combined on TV with an attempt to go beyond the sales pitch to brainwashing).
    To be frankly blunt, I have really come to question the value of the 4-year political conventions. I question if the vast majority of “delegates” in the arena have any connection with any significant policy analysis in back rooms made by a dozen or 2 individuals.
    However, I totally agree with you on how “precious” it is that a journalist is saying come-on-this-is-a-convention.
    I also laugh at him calling the RNC convention civil. If that was non-hostile by comparison, it really points out how dirty things have become.

  5. pansypoo says:

    calvin ball. working the refs.

  6. arcadesproject says:

    Guy’s absolutely right. Fact checking is a trojan horse for left wing partisans and their policy positions. Reality skews liberal. Everybody knows that.

  7. pansypoo says:

    smoke + mirrors is all they have.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: