How 2016 became the fact-check election
| Washington
Professional fact-checkers might be excused for being a tad exhausted this campaign season.
Tracking the public statements of 22 major-party candidates during the primaries was one thing. But a general election pitting Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton 鈥� two candidates with abysmal scores for honesty聽聽鈥� is another, sending the fact-checking world into overdrive.
Is Mr. Trump really worth $10 billion, as he claims? (Not according to magazine.)聽Is it true that Mrs. Clinton 鈥渟lept鈥� during the Benghazi terror attack in 2012, as Trump says? (No, according to .) Was Clinton allowed to use a personal email server when she was secretary of State, as she has asserted? (No, according to a by the State Department鈥檚 Office of the inspector general.)聽
Trump alone is enough to keep the entire fact-checking industry afloat. When the flamboyant billionaire gave a big speech recently denouncing Clinton, the Associated Press just to check the veracity of his assertions 鈥� 鈥渁 whole platoon of journalistic talent that could have been doing other things,鈥� moaned Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple.聽
It鈥檚 easy to get discouraged by all the charges of lying hurled around 鈥� Lyin鈥� Ted, LyingCrookedHillary (both a verbal Trump charge and the name of a Trump campaign site), from the Clinton campaign that lay out Trump鈥檚 鈥渓ies, hypocrisy, and catastrophic ideas.鈥� And certainly, to some voters, the whole tone of the campaign is so depressing, the answer is just to tune out and stay home on Election Day.
But to veteran fact-checkers, it鈥檚 the time to shine. Angie Drobnic Holan, editor in chief of the Pulitzer Prize-winning site PolitiFact.com, says she鈥檚 鈥渞eally optimistic,鈥� citing the growth of media fact-checking.
鈥淵ou can have a cynical take on that, but mine is more optimistic,鈥� because fact-checking is especially needed this year, she says. 鈥淒onald Trump is a candidate who has persistent problems with accuracy, and I鈥檓 heartened that there鈥檚 widespread recognition that this is someone who needs to be fact-checked.鈥�
Trump supporters, not surprisingly, disagree. Jeffrey Lord, a regular on CNN defending Trump, calls media fact-checkers 鈥渆litist鈥� and says the candidates themselves do a better job of countering each other鈥檚 assumptions.
This 鈥渟elf-policing鈥� concept sounds a bit like having a basketball game with no referees. And besides, it鈥檚 just not going to happen. Media fact-checking is here to stay. So are politicians who say things that aren鈥檛 true and accuse each other of lying. But there鈥檚 a spectrum of political speech: There are out-and-out lies 鈥� deliberately false statements meant to deceive 鈥� then there are statements that are unintentionally false, exaggerations, and spin. Sorting through the differences can be impossible, as it requires knowing what鈥檚 inside the speaker鈥檚 head.
And what about a candidate who makes big promises, knowing they can鈥檛 be fulfilled? That鈥檚 another form of political speech that is less-than-truthful, but which voters have come to expect 鈥� and often excuse.
In a recent focus group, veteran pollster Peter Hart asked 12 Republicans if they thought a President Trump would ever actually build a wall across the Mexican border. Eight people voted no. Same with his promise to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. And yet most of the 12 were fine that these promises would likely go unfulfilled.
鈥淭hey don鈥檛 hear a pledge, they hear, 鈥業鈥檓 going to do something,鈥� 鈥� says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania鈥檚 Annenberg Public Policy Center, which sponsored the focus group.
But making pie-in-the-sky promises is one thing. Statements of fact that prove false are another, and that鈥檚 where fact-checkers are having a field day. PolitiFact has judged by Trump so far, and found only 16 to be either true or mostly true.聽Seventy have been judged false, and another 34 rated 鈥淧ants on Fire,鈥� referring to claims that are 鈥渘ot only inaccurate but also ridiculous,鈥� according to Ms. Holan.
With Clinton, PolitiFact has judged and rated 112 true or mostly true, 24 false, and three 鈥淧ants on Fire.鈥澛�
The next question is whether the assessments of PolitiFact and other fact-checkers actually penetrate public consciousness? 聽
鈥淥ur traffic is better than it鈥檚 ever been,鈥� says Holan, whose site is affiliated with the Tampa Bay Times. 鈥淢edia organizations are doing fact-checking in part because it鈥檚 very popular with readers.鈥�
Professor Jamieson, whose Annenberg center launched the first political fact-checking website, FactCheck.org, in 2003, is less sanguine.
鈥淔act-checking has never been more important, more complicated, and less likely to reach its target audience with the desired corrected information,鈥� Jamieson says.
Part of the problem is the ever-accelerating news cycle. 鈥淚n order to get a correction through, you have to get people to stand still long enough to hear it,鈥� she says.
Another issue, particularly for fact-checking operations attached to news sites, is low public opinion of the media. Only 6 percent of Americans have a 鈥済reat deal of confidence鈥� in the press, according to a released in April by the Media Insight Project.聽
Holan of PolitiFact says that when readers accuse her site of partisan bias against Trump, she counters with data that show Republicans who do well on the PolitiFact 鈥淭ruth-o-Meter,鈥� such as Jeb Bush.
Of course, former Governor Bush didn鈥檛 do very well as a presidential candidate; voters don鈥檛 necessarily favor a candidate because he or she is more factual. Moreover, for a slice of the electorate, this cycle reflects a break from politics as usual 鈥� and that includes an embrace of candidates who speak to voters without the filter of polls, focus groups, and scripted statements.
