Fact-Checking Resources for Poli Threads
POSTED BY: Noocyte
UPDATED: Saturday, October 9, 2004 21:14
VIEWED: 4033
PAGE 2 of 2
Just a bump.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the bump, Rue. Bumping in myself, to let folks know that some really good stuff is afoot on www.factcheck.org on the last "debate."
The more I read about these misrepresentations by both sides, only to hear them repeated, again and again and again in various fora, the more I feel the need to schedule a massage to counteract the effects of all this wincing.
As a general aside, am I the only one who's noticed more fact-checking segments on the mainstream news? Could this reflect an increasing demand for this kind of objective analysis? Is it possible that the supercharged spin machines have sowed the seeds of their own undoing by energizing the electorate and whetting our appetite for information on the one hand, and frustrating us with the pitiful quality of that information on the other? This would be an amusing irony and a healthy development for our democracy. We shall see...
Department of Redundancy Department
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't remember fact-checking to be as prominent in the last election cycle. This time around it seems very prominent on-line, and it is the first item I go to.
As an aside, I take great pains to read original documents (Energy Commission report, Senate report, 9/11 Commission etc. The Duefler report is a tome, though.) I've done this because the media, despite their archives and paid research departments and fact-checkers, have been shamefully, woefully inadequate. So I am grateful that there are organizations doing the leg work for me.
As to misrepresentations being repeated (and this is not an excuse) I was wondering how someone could 'correct' one once it's out there.
In his presidency, Bush simply goes ahead with new 'facts' as if the old ones were never uttered. And given the media's laxity, it was never brought up as an issue.
But in this campaign, with both sides hammering the other on what was said, it would be difficult to change a position without getting nailed by the other side. AHA! Gotcha! So I think they get repeated because there is no exit.
Tactically, if I were to try to deal with it, I would find a way to avoid citing that particular fact while still pursuing the issue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME