Comments on: Why it’s better for fact-checking to be done in public

By: Gene Venable

Gene Venable — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:08:42 +0000

Ever hear of birthing? Of course you have, it’s the movement based on the false claim that Obama wasn’t born in the US. It has been fact-checked on many occasions, on public, yet refuses to die. I submit that if the first claims had been privately checked and suppressed, it would never have become the zombie idea it is today

By: tech9iner

tech9iner — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:27:33 +0000

Your pop-up wordpress widgets are the bain to promoting your appreciated articles!?
Whilst attempting to share this article on Google+ the instant one attempts to click into the g+ input field, your widget popup senses this as a close.. utterly defeating the purpose of offering a ‘+1′ button in the first place!?

By: Renie

Renie — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:34:22 +0000

I think the problem is that once its out there, no matter how much others correct it, the article provides fuel/ammunition for people who want to believe the inaccurate assertions. I have a Facebook friend, an ultra-conservative, who was just so impressed that Newsweek of all places called out Obama. (See even this liberal magazine knows he sucks). When it was pointed out that Newsweek also just trashed Romney and it was all empty noise, he said “no, the article trashing Romney was nonsense, but the anti-Obama piece used sound facts and figures “. When I pointed out that those figures have been uniformly smacked down by a variety of publications, he points to Ferguson’s self-defense. When I said there are articles showing that the self-defense was even weaker than original piece, my conservative friend’s reply is that all of those articles are untrustworthy, they’re written by Columbia Journalism School types.

So according to my Facebook pal’s analysis, Newsweek (???) is apparently the only reliable source, but only so far the anti-Obama article , we can’t believe them on the anti-Romney stuff.

Now clearly, this guy is not going to vote for Obama anyway, but now we have the added pain of him waving around crazy articles to support his even crazier positions. THAT’s why magazines owe it to all of us to fact check.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:21 +0000

Except that I would argue that when “opinion” pieces rely on facts, those must be factual. Interpretation is different from using the wrong numbers. And letting the readers sort it out, as Mr. Ingram is suggesting, is a poor solution in search of a news utopia that doesn’t and won’t exist. It should be part of the fiduciary duty of publishers to vet any content for factual content. Otherwise their brand is worthless.

By: angelalmyers

angelalmyers — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:49:54 +0000

Mathew, I don’t believe transparency trumps truth in journalism. As a lifelong student of journalism, sure, I’m interested in what goes on behind the scenes. But as a consumer of news I don’t really care about how the sausage is made; i just want to know that it’s done and I won’t get sick ingesting it.

I’ve been a copy editor for many years and know all about the fact-checking that Krugman describes for the NYT. I got paid well to do this. As a reader, I don’t to be clicking links all over the place to verify the truth of what I’m reading. That’s the content generator’s job!

By: WTF

WTF — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:17:09 +0000

What is Vanity Fair magazine’s fact-checking policy these days? The embarrassing errors in a recent VF article really make me wonder:

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2012/08/fact-checking-mark-bowdens-curious.html

It’s amazing that no one else is writing about this. Mark Bowden and Vanity Fair owe their readers an explanation. Their attempted stonewalling only raises more questions.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:38:23 +0000

There is plenty of unfiltered unchecked news available. As a Newsweek subscriber, I would prefer and expect that there is at least some objectivity and accuracy in the articles that pretend to be factual. What Mr. Ferguson wrote was more of a political add that even an opinion piece.

By: carsonbuckingham

carsonbuckingham — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:43:38 +0000

Having facts checked by the public can be a bad thing in that it does a number on the credibility of the magazine in question. Additionally, the public should not be expected to work for the magazine for free, in finding their errors. If errors are getting by the fact checkers, then they either not good at their jobs, or are lazy. Fact checking takes a long time and required patience. If mags aren’t giving their fact checkers enough lead time to do their jobs properly, then that could be another reason errors are getting through. This problem needs to be corrected internally. I won’t read a magazine beyond a single issue if I discover the facts are wrong. How can you then believe anything printed in that publication?

Why can’t people just do their jobs well instead of offloading them onto the public? I don’t want to “interact” with the magazine I’m reading. I want accurate information. This is why I PAY FOR the magazine.

By: cas127

cas127 — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:15:51 +0000

MI,

You are making this situation more complicated than is really necessary.

What is actually going on is an attempt to stifle dissent by hysterical left-leaners who, having lost their MSM monopoly due to the rise of alternative media (AM radio, then cable, then the internet) *simply will not tolerate* any ideological deviation from “their own” (dying) “instruments” (Newsweek).

All these charges of “factual error” are bullsh*t – the NF cover piece contained no more error or misrepresention than any randomly selected daily Krugman article.

But any dissenter to the Left must be “put to silence” (thus the “closed” fact checking process advocated) – open discussion threatens the authoritarian posture of inarguability assumed by the Left.

MI, you err by assuming that this Krugman et al’s objections are being made in good faith and therefore an entire exegesis on fact checking is called for.

This isn’t about disinterested truth-seeking – it is about ideological purges and the sanctimonious sh*ts who organize them.

By: Glenn Fannick

Glenn Fannick — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:34:16 +0000

I have to say that this is one of the strangest arguments I’ve heard on this subject: “Isn’t there a public value to seeing mistakes that are made before the fact-checkers get to them and seeing them corrected”?

I would say clearly: No. There is value in discussion about the opinions, but not the facts.

Why should the burden be on the reader to check facts? Not to mention many people well never see the followup and only the original.