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.
Or, to put it in terms of bipartisan foreign policy establishment and inside the Beltway stenos, that's their target audience.
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.
And, some of this then goes to Beltway media using fact checkers as part of horse-race coverage of political campaigns.
"They're up to 113 Pinocchios in the last six months!"
It still doesn't address Poynter's lack of transparency. Or other issues with Poynter beyond, but including, Politifact.
And this is not the first time I've blogged about problems with Politifact.
No comments:
Post a Comment