NPR gives anti-fact-checkers a new voice

On the January 10th, 2012 episode of NPR's Talk of The Nation, host Neil Conan, The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway, and The Washington Post's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler discussed fact-checking in American politics. The episode appeared to be based on Hemingway's recent article entitled "Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’." I thought it would be useful to provide a critique of the statements and claims given in this episode. However, many of Hemingway's statements have already been addressed in my recent post "The Weekly Standard Attacks Fact Checkers [Parts 1, 2 3]" so I will not cover them here. If you listened to the program and heard a claim not addressed in this particular post, check my post about Hemingway's article.

A SPECTRUM OF TRUTH

"CONAN: There have been others, including Mark Hemingway, but other stories about fact checkers in the past few weeks that have come to the conclusion that, well, among other things, it's hard to find absolute assertions of facts by politicians...

[KESSLER:]...Now, you know, I have this gradation where you get one to four Pinocchios...you know, that's a reflection of the fact that there's a gradation there. You know, there are facts that are vaguely true but are taken out of context, or there are facts that are not very illustrative of the point you're trying to make."

This is actually a very important point.Statements can be true, but misleading. Statements can be technically false but true in context (for example, a cited number can be off by a bit). In a statement with multiple claims, some can be true while others false.

"HEMINGWAY: ...I don't think anybody's against checking the actual fact. It's just that it comes down to, you know, like what you mentioned before, where you have situations where, you know, you have debates that are far too nuanced to say this is, you know, correct or this is incorrect."

This is exactly why Politifact actually has a grade of ratings, from "True" to "Pants on Fire," just to reflect this sort of reality. In fact, I'm not aware of any fact checkers that grade based solely on absolute truth or falsehood. So this complaint may be completely contrived.

ON TO THE CALLS

Soon after, Conan began taking calls. His first call was from Brian.

"BRIAN:  ...But when I started rethinking the fact-checking model was the PolitiFact Lie of the Year of 2011 about, you know, Republicans voting to end Medicare. And that was an issue where there was so much gray area, and it was so opinion-based that for them to call that the lie of the year as an absolute statement just absolutely shot their credibility with me."

I have yet to weigh in on this issue. However, Kessler's response is worth noting:

"KESSLER: That's right, that's right. And I think the case of the - you know, what the issue at hand was the Democrats saying that the Republicans were planning to kill Medicare, which they then illustrated with television ads that included literally tossing granny over the cliff... And, you know, when you get down to it, you can have an argument about whether or not what the House Republicans want to do with Medicare was a radical change or not, but it was not killing the program." (emphasis mine)

It seems Kessler hit the nail right on the head. Hemingway then chimed in:

"HEMINGWAY: Well, I think this PolitiFact Lie of the Year thing actually is a very useful conversation because it illustrates in a very good way where the fact-checking things can really muck up the debate... I think that PolitiFact was fairly egregious when they pronounced this the Lie of the Year... So yes, I mean, yes, Paul Ryan is, you know, maybe killing is too strong and unhelpful, but it's also not helpful to say that he's not changing the fundamental nature of the program either."

Once again, Politifact already had this covered. In the first paragraph from the "Lie of the Year 2011" article, Politifact mentioned "Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies. (emphasis mine)" There is no way Hemingway missed this. It was on the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article he is criticizing. In fact, a fair chunk of space is devoted to outlining these changes.

Of course Hemingway also had to bring up past instances were Republicans suffered the "Lie of The Year" humiliation.

"HEMINGWAY: I would also point out that just two years ago, PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was Sarah Palin referring to death panels, which refers to something, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is the part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that deals with Medicare. And they declared that the Lie of the Year. And, you know, personally I think it was obvious that Sarah Palin was indulging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole"

Sarah Palin didn't just call them "Death Panels." She also provided a whole slew of false claims about what these "Death Panels" do: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care . Such a system is downright evil. (emphasis mine)" As Politifact then explained, "There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care (emphasis mine)." In fact, Politifact pointed out the health care bill explicitly said ""Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select. (emphasis mine)" As you can see. This is beyond just rhetoric. She made a specific claim, which was determined not only to be false, but outrageously false.  Once again this begs the question over whether or not Hemingway actually reads these articles he talks about.

WHAT DOES FACT CHECKING SAY ABOUT TRADITIONAL JOURNALISM?

Neil Conan then points out another criticism of Fact Checkers, to which Hemingway Responds:

"CONAN: One of the criticisms, Mark Hemingway, that's been raised is that in fact fact-checkers undermine their own organizations, and elsewhere in the newspaper, aren't those reporters supposed to be checking facts, too?

HEMINGWAY: Yeah, and I think this is a big problem here is what we have is the major media outlets have so given themselves over to analysis and other things like that that what happens is that now...

CONAN: As a result of the changing news business.

HEMINGWAY: Yes, as a result of the changing news business, a lot of factors, have so given themselves over to analysis that people read newspapers anymore, and they're like, well, where's the basic information that I want? So then when we get into these complex matters or disputes, along come the fact-checkers to answer these questions because it wasn't resolved in the initial, you know, reporting."

Hemingway assumes that standard reporting is actually supposed to check the facts. But we end up with an issue here. For clarity on this, lets turn to his article in The Weekly Standard: "Aside from fact-checking debates afterward... the Washington Post and Bloomberg... actually took the novel tack of running “fact checks” on what the candidates were saying in real time. While presidential candidates should not be above being held accountable for what they say in such a forum, there is good reason to be skeptical that instantaneous evaluations will ever prove useful or fair. (emphasis mine)" So on one hand, he blames the media for not fact checking when reporting. However, reporting tends to happen very fast, often in real time. As a result, would this not make the problems outlined in his quote much more common? I personally, would love to see more fact-checking in normal reporting. However, I understand there are downsides. As a result, Hemingway's criticism may be no more than wishful thinking. Luckily Glenn Kessler points out the need for fact checking in the real world of journalism.

"CONAN: And, you know, Glenn, you wrote a piece that said wait a minute, we're not supposed to be replacing journalism, we're complimentary.

KESSLER: That's right, I view it as a supplement, and in fact when I was a political reporter, I was often frustrated that I would be covering the day-to-day statements of the candidates and never really had an opportunity to step back and really examine what the truth was behind that statement. And what I try to do with these columns is not only focus on a particular statement but also give resources for readers to go do their own research. I provide links to all my documentation, to all the reports that I've looked at to reach my conclusions, and so I view it as in part, you know, an education process for everyone involved."

Kessler does a good job detailing the need for Fact Checkers in today's reporting.  The process can often be long (unless the claims have been fact checked already). Fact checking columns provide a place where reporters can focus solely on the accuracy of one or a few claims, and not get bogged down in standard time constraints and other reporting duties unnecessary to the practice of fact checking.

THE US IS BANKRUPT?! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Another caller, name Matt, called in to complain about a fact checking column (assumed to be Kessler's) where Ron Paul was awarded "four Pinocchios" for claiming the US is bankrupt:

"MATT: ...And I just - and I found it totally unhelpful. It's kind of what you were talking about. You're just quibbling about definitions. I think anybody who is following the economic situation would say that we're in dire trouble, and so to say that - you know, and also Ron Paul's been very clear what he means by bankrupt. So if you wanted to talk about that, you could look into exactly what he means. He's been talking about it for 30 years...

CONAN: And bankrupt, I think the argument, if you use the term bankrupt, you should say what you mean.

KESSLER: Exactly. I mean, that's a very strong term. And the fact of the matter is, you know, U.S. Treasury bonds are the gold standard around the world, and you can say the United States is in economic distress or is headed towards bankruptcy or something like that, but to make a flat declaration that the United States is bankrupt I think is incorrect."

This is an interesting little question. As Kessler pointed out in his article, "Under no definition is the United States bankrupt." So this means Ron Paul is using the term with his own personal definition. As Neil and Kessler point out, this is a very strong term and needs clarification. Ron Paul may have been clarifying this to his fans for the last 30 years,but he had no way of knowing that his audience had seen these "clarifications." He made this statement during an Iowa Republican debate at a time when fewer than 10% of Republicans supported him. So what are the chances a significant number of people didn't know what he meant by the word "bankrupt?" Remember that fact checkers have to grade these statements based on how they can expect a reasonable person would interpret them.

I should also note that issues arise when people decide to use their own special vocabularies. Why did Ron Paul specifically use the term "bankrupt?" If, in a public speech, I called someone a "racist" and later pointed to earlier writings where I used the term to mean "anyone that uses the term "black" for anything," does that still excuse the fact that, as people understood it, I was saying that person is bigoted toward people of other races? Is Ron Paul attempting to defeat the purpose of language as a means of communication by using his own personal dictionary? Hemingway continued:

"I mean, does any American not know what Ron Paul means when he says America's bankrupt? I mean, the national debt has increased $4 trillion, about 40 percent in three years. We have, you know, things like $30 trillion unfunded Medicare liabilities. We have no money."

While all of these issues are definitely pressing, they hardly constitute a situation where "We have no money" and/or "We are bankrupt." Those terms have specific meanings. One could argue that, since we are both in debt, as well as in a deficit, we have no money. However, this situation is in no way unique in American History. Nonetheless, to my knowledge Hemingway has not provided evidence that a significant number of reasonable people would even interpret Ron Paul's phrase in any way other than how it is defined in the dictionary¹. Hemingway continued:

"Yes, in the specific sense, there is no extra-national legal court that we can go to and file something, you know, Chapter 11 with the United Nations or something like that. But everyone knows we're out of money, and everyone knows what Ron Paul means, and to go in and sort of nitpick that just isn't helpful to the political dialogue, I think."

Once again, Hemingway asserts that "everyone knows what Ron Paul means." Has he ever provided evidence for this? Now he is probably right that most people do not think Ron Paul meant the US has filed "Chapter 11 with the United Nations or something like that." But he forgets that someone can use the term bankrupt outside of the legal sense: "Financially ruined; impoverished." As Kessler pointed out in his article, "the United States is able to pay its debts, and its bonds are still regarded as the gold standard in the financial markets." In addition, Ron Paul made this statement in regards to the S&P downgrade. However, Politifact points out this downgrade is no sign of bankruptcy: "The United States had a AAA credit rating, which S&P defines as having "extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments." It's the highest rating you can get. After the downgrade, the United States has a AA+ credit rating. It's just one notch down from AAA on a scale that has more than 20 notches. S&P now says the United States "has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments." The "+" shows that the U.S. rating is on the high side of AA. Meanwhile, two other ratings agencies, Moody's and Fitch, didn't change their U.S. ratings — America still has the highest rating they offer. (emphasis mine)" This is hardly bankruptcy.

GIVE POLITICIANS A BREAK!

"HEMINGWAY: Well, yeah, but the other thing is I never say this because, you know, I'm inherently suspicious of politicians; I think all Americans should be. But you also have to give these guys a break. I mean, they're trying to communicate to a mass audience, you know, by talking confidently, which is why they make so many mistakes, which is why they give Glenn plenty of fodder on one hand. But on the other hand, I mean, you know, cut them some slack. I mean, they're trying to push a message here..."

Thank you Hemingway for pointing out one major reason we need fact checking operations. What Hemingway considers "fodder" for fact checkers is also potentially dangerous misinformation for a voting populace. Is Hemingway okay with the idea of misinformed voters? Or should we excuse politicians for "trying to push a message?" If they have to push a message based on factual inaccuracies, should that not give voters reason to question the accuracy of the message itself?

THE REST

The rest of the show dealt with issues I already critiqued in my posts over Hemingway's article (linked at the top of this post).  

Also, it is sad that Kessler did not jump to defend Politifact when Hemingway attacked them (luckily my previous posts address his claims anyway). Kessler and Politifact do seem to have a friendly working relationship though. Kessler has even cited Politifact before.




¹ - Although citing the dictionary to prove that someone's definition of a word is wrong can be a fallacy, this is not what is being shown here. What we are showing is that, if the definition used by someone is not contained in the dictionary, it is reasonable to assume a significant number of people will not understand the word in the way that person meant it.