Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Downside of Rating Systems In Political Fact Checking

http://www.marketplace.org/sites/default/files/styles/primary-image-610x340/public/list-truth-chalkboard.jpg

In his farewell message to fans of political fact checking, departing FactCheck.org director Brooks Jackson reflects on the growth of the fact checking industry, the merits of fact checking, criticisms of fact checkers, and various legitimate pitfalls made by various fact-checking sites. Among the pitfalls he discussed, the one that most caught my eye dealt with the ratings systems fact checkers use so often:
Rating statements with devices such as “truth-o-meters” or “Pinocchios” are popular with readers, and successful attention-grabbers. But such ratings are by their nature subjective — the difference between one or two “Pinocchios” is a matter of personal judgment, and debatable. Some statements are clearly true, and some provably false, but there’s no agreed method for determining the precise degree of mendacity in any statement that falls somewhere in between. Rating systems have also led to embarrassment. A senator who said a “majority” of Americans are conservative was rated “mostly true” (and later “half true”) even though the statement was false. The story cited a poll showing only 40 percent of Americans rated themselves conservative. That’s more than said they were moderate (35 percent) or liberal (21 percent) but still far from a majority. The senator had a point, but stated it incorrectly, thereby exaggerating. A simple “truth-o-meter” had no suitable category for that. Our approach would have been to say that it was false. But we would also note that the senator would have been correct to say Americans are more likely to call themselves conservative than moderate, or liberal, when given those three choices.
While I disagree that ratings systems are entirely subjective (most have specific rules for each category), I do agree that the organization of categories is not rigorous. There are obviously statements that do not easily fit into any given category. Furthermore, these rating systems can be a distraction, giving the reader an incentive to merely look at the rating and ignore the actual fact checking. Although I do understand not everyone has time to read an tire article over every claim that has been checked, simple summaries (such as the ones used by FactCheck.org) at least give the reader a basic idea as to what was right and/or wrong with the checked claim. I will admit ratings systems have doubtless contributed to the rising popularity of fact checking. But it isn't clear whether or not they actually do more harm than good.

In addition to discussing the pitfalls of fact checking, Jackson also made some very good points about the actual purpose of fact checking in political discourse:
"Complaining that fact-checkers failed to stop politicians from lying is like complaining that a firefighter failed to prevent an arsonist from starting a fire.
Furthermore, it seems to me that anyone who asks the very political operatives behind the 2012 falsehoods to rate our performance is pretty much interviewing the arsonists about the merits of the firefighters. We don’t write to impress politicians or their hirelings. We write to help the voters — and we don’t expect to get an invitation to dinners at the White House. We can’t stop politicians from trying to bamboozle voters. But we can make voters harder to fool."
Indeed there is an extremely important role for fact checkers to play in political discourse. And Jackson sums it up quite nicely. Scientific skepticism, which fact checkers apply to politics, has a role in nearly every aspect of life, including politics. In this spirit I thank Mr. Jackson for the quality work both he and his team have done over the past nine years. FactCheck.org is my favorite fact checking site and I wish him the best of luck in the future!

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

A Balanced Budget Ammendment Is A Terrible Idea

http://conservativenewjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/balanced-budget.jpg

Bobby Jindal attempts to make the case for a federal balanced budget amendment:
"A federal balanced budget amendment. States have balanced budget laws, small businesses have to balance their budgets, and families have to do the same. This is an idea that is supported by virtually every American who does not live in the 202 area code. It’s common sense. It is also laughed at in Washington. When you mention the BBA as a solution, they roll their eyes and write you off as a non-serious person. But the American public is dead serious about it, and they should be."
A federal balanced budget amendment is one of the most popular horrible ideas in political discourse today. You simply cannot compare personal budgets, business budgets, or even state budgets to national budgets in this way. People and businesses can balance their budgets because in doing so they don't also jeopardize their incomes (unlike the government, as can be seen very clearly from the austerity crisis/fiscal cliff). State governments can balance their budgets because they can always count on the federal government to both make up the shortfall. Calling a balanced budget "common sense" shows just how ridiculous the idea of "common sense" can be when applied to counter intuitive fields like this. Americans who are calling for a balanced budget do not truly understand what they are doing. This is evidenced by the fact that so many Americans are so completely ignorant of what is actually in the federal budget. This leaves conservative pundit David Frum to ponder a hypothetical question:
"It would be wonderful to hear Gov. Jindal identify the specific cuts he would have made during the nadir of the recession, when revenues as a share of GDP were around 15%, the lowest since the Second World War. At that point, cutting PBS and foreign aid won't get you to 15%. At 15%, you have to slash entitlements (can't do that!) and the Department of Defense (good luck getting southern senators on board with that!)."
Frum also notes that conservatives can still be conservative without going to such absurd lengths:
"Yes, Washington is too bloated. Yes, Washington is trying to do too many things it should leave to private citizens and state governments. Yes, Washington should be aiming to leave the federal government's share of GDP near the historical norm of 18-20 percent. And yes, I too am concerned by Ezra Klein's warning that 18 percent won't be able to pay for our existing and future obligations. We have to address these problems, and as conservatives, we must work to restrain the federal government from consuming an ever larger share of the gross domestic product.
But you don't win elections by promising to cut benefits, retard growth, and paralyze government when it is needed most -- during the depths of recessions. That's a terrible electoral strategy, but it's also horrible leadership from a party elite. Gov. Jindal can unload all the populist rhetoric he'd like, but he's as elite as anyone in Washington, DC, and that role comes with obligations."
No doubt the left has quite a few bad ideas as well. But that does not excuse the right from avoiding the most important responsibilities expected of an elected politician:
"Endorsing a balanced budget amendment, laughing off the uncertainty of messing with the debt ceiling, and deriding efforts to keep our nation functioning is an abdication of those responsibilities. I hope we see better in the future from Gov. Jindal."