All the fact-checking agencies have problems from time to time. With many of them, part of their problem is that they have a target audience of the gamut from Never Trumper Republicans to mainstream Democrats — ie, the sweet spot within the duopoly.
But, per a Politifact scoring of Rachel Maddow's "guns" question to Bernie Sanders, there are other reasons to question Politifact, as I explained there.
What Politifact is doing the scoring? Politifact National or a state Politifact?
What? There's more than one Politifact?
Damn straight, and Poynter doesn't explain why it uses just one media outlet in state-level Politifacts where it does that, rather than a university's journalism department, which it does elsewhere. And in those states, it doesn't explain why it uses just that university J-school.
Is there some "branding" involved? Behind that, some financial consideration?
Wouldn't surprise me.
Beyond that, though he's writing about the Washington Post's fact checkers, and about them versus Sanders as being too radical, Jeet Heer's cautions can be extended beyond that. Politically weaponizing fact checking is a dangerous proposition. In this particular case, he says it can give Trump an opening to questioning the whole enterprise.
Tis true both ways, Jeet. Spin-doctoring fact checking in Bernie's favor, as I have just pointed out, does the same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.