The Future of Factchecking- Thoughts?

04 Dec

The future of factchecking

Here’s what journalists should learn from the 2012 campaign

By Brendan Nyhan

As journalists close the books on 2012 and look forward to coverage of a second Obama administration, one important question is where the factchecking movement goes from here.

The general election campaign was unquestionably the most intensively factchecked in history. While factchecking did not eliminate falsehoods from our politics, this was always an unrealistic expectation. The relevant question is whether politicians were more careful, and voters better informed, than they would have been without factchecking. By that standard, the expansion of factchecking seems likely to have had a positive effect.

Given these successes, many observers hope the media will continue to increase the resources and attention given to factchecking in the future. In an interview with New York Times reporter Brian Stelter, for instance, NYU professor and media critic Jay Rosen suggested CNN should “declare jihad on the talking points” and prominently feature “on-air fact-checking”:

“They [CNN] don’t want to be Fox and they don’t want to be MSNBC. Fine. But ‘neither nor’ is not an identity,” said the New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen. “It can’t tell you what talent to hire, or what programs to try. They keep circling around the answer: declare jihad on the talking points and make that your identity, along with on-air fact-checking.”

Any further expansion of  factchecking—whether as the new brand of a cable news network or in other print or broadcast outlets—faces significant challenges, however. First, continued changes are needed in journalistic norms that encourage “he said,” “she said” reporting of bogus claims and strategy-focused coverage of factual disputes.

Outlets must also learn to overcome the controversies and frictions that factchecking inevitably creates, which tend to help keep the status quo in place. At the elite level, for instance, the increased salience of factchecking during this electoral cycle generated unprecedented pushback, ranging from an 86-page dossier on Politifact Virginia released by the state GOP to repeated on-air attacks on PolitiFact by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Some of these complaints had merit—like other journalists, factcheckers sometimes make mistakes and demonstrate poor judgment—but the criticisms often appear driven in part by partisan or ideological considerations.

Media outlets will also have to learn how to tolerate objections from their audience. Most people like the idea of challenging talking points and factchecking in the abstract, but protest when their side gets criticized—a factor that unfortunately creates commercial incentives to avoid aggressive factchecking.

Given the energy and enthusiasm behind the factchecking movement, it is likely that these challenges can be at least partially overcome. The criteria for success, though, should not be the addition of more specialized factcheckers or the production of more factchecking articles and TV segments. Dedicated factcheckers like PolitiFact and play a critical role, but we will know that factchecking has succeeded in changing American political journalism when it disappears as a specialized function. The process of factchecking needs to be integrated into political coverage, not ghettoized in sidebars and online features. If more reporters adopt best practices for covering misinformation (including exercising discretion in not fact-checking some statements), politicians and other public figures could face even more effective scrutiny in 2013 and beyond.


Posted by on December 4, 2012 in Uncategorized


2 responses to “The Future of Factchecking- Thoughts?

  1. meow484

    December 4, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    I agree, In the first couple of paragraphs talking about how much more factchecking was used in the 2012 election and that journalistic should learn from it. It should be apart of there jobs when writing a story, even if they’re not writing about politics. Factchecking should be a bigger part in what is being published into the public, and our news outlets should take more responsibility to make that happen. Fox News I think is one of the worst offenders, they’re very biased and tend to make there side much more positive but also they don’t broadcast the truth. I understand if you have an opinion and feel strongly about a subject or side but Fox takes it to far in most cases. There should be a limit to what can be factchecked, in regards to politics both sides should be questioned equally. I think if we are more in favor of facechecking and making sure its happening maybe we wont have so many lies and twits happening in the first place.

  2. simmons1216

    December 10, 2012 at 3:33 am

    When I watched the 2012 debates, I was always on PolitiFact. I loved that YouTube streamed the debates because I wouldn’t have caught the debate without the ability to pause and replay certain parts and check the statements on PolitiFact. I also loved checking Twitter to get commentary and fact-checks on the statements that each candidate made. It really makes me excited for the next 4 years of fact-checking to make politicians more trustworthy, or it’s possible that it’ll make citizens more wise to the lies of the people they’re voting into office.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: