Blog Essay: Fact-Checking and Accuracy of Claims

Recently, watchdog groups have created websites dedicated to exposing the “extremism” of ideological enemies and journalists have begun projects that fact-check claims made by prominent political figures and media.
Two established examples, Media Matters for America and PolitiFact, which are extremely different from each other, both attempt to provide information to inform an audience and shape their viewer’s consciousness.

Launched in 2004, Media Matters for America created, for the first time, the “means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda. . .” The organization espouses that it notifies activists, journalists, pundits, and the public about conservative misinformation, providing resources to rebut the false claims and take direct action against the media institutions (“About Us”).

A nonpartisan group, PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and examines statements by members of Congress, state legislators, governors, mayors, the president, cabinet secretaries. lobbyists, those testifying before Congress, and those who have “loud” voices in American politics. After researching statements, PolitiFact then rates the accuracy on their Truth-O-Meter as either True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and for the most ridiculous statements, Pants on Fire. The group also rates the consistency of public officials through their Flip-O-Meter using three ratings: No Flip, Half Flip, and Full Flop (“About PolitiFact”).

While both track and report important information to wide audiences, those audiences still seem to be niches, especially those who elicit a response. Many questions come to mind when pondering who that audience might be. Many campaigns attempt to target a “moveable middle,” or voters who tend to be moderates and are less attentive, or even participative, in politics. Does Media Matters for America attempt to strengthen progressive values with those who already identify with a left ideology? Do they attempt to shift moderates and non-affiliated voters to loyal Democrats? Are their efforts an opportunity to gain the attention of moderate Republicans, hoping to strip their party identity?

Perhaps, though, it’s important to ask whether these efforts are worthwhile. When PolitiFact posts their findings on Facebook, many of the top comments either argue the results or use them to champion their ideology.  In the recent article, “Hillary Clinton’s email: Did she follow all the rules,” PolitiFact ruled that she complied with federal law, but her actions are hard to defend (Carroll, 2015, n.p.). It is notable, however, to read that 8 of the top ten Facebook comments on the article were from liberal supporters of Clinton; the other two were neutral. Another recent ruling declared the statement “every day, a black name resume is 50 percent less likely to get responded to than a white name resume (Sanders, 2015, n.p.). Similarly, 8 of the top 10 Facebook comments from conservatives refudiate the ruling, including one respondent posting, “Hey shitstarting media, piss off.” The same comments are reflected on Media Matter for America’s Facebook feed.

Certainly, both groups present useful information that corrects assumptions and sheds light on egregious rhetoric; however, how well does the public receive this information, particularly through a platform such as Facebook? Many scholars have contributed to building knowledge around confirmation bias, where individuals only seek out information that supports and reinforces their current beliefs, and accounts for a significant fraction of disputes, altercations, and misunderstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations (NIckerson, 1998, p. 175). With Facebook users having the capability to customize their news feed and select the information they wish to see, we may be able to assume with confirmation bias that those in the “moveable middle” and moderates choose to intentionally ignore this information, whereas strong conservatives and liberals seek it out. How do we gauge the usefulness of the information presented if the only ones seeking it out are strong ideologues attempting to promote their leanings or contend the findings? Is Facebook the correct platform to spread this information? Are non-partisan groups more effective than the blatantly left-leaning Media Matters for America? These are difficult questions worth pondering as we continue moving into the information age and the 24 hour news cycle, but worthwhile nonetheless.

Bibliography

About PolitiFact. PolitiFact.com. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/about/.

About Us. Media Matters for America. Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/about.

Carroll, L. (2015). Hillary Clinton’s email: Did she follow all the rules? PolitiFact.com.

Retrieved from  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/

hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Nickerson, R. S. (2008). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.

Review of General Psychology, 2(2): 175-220.

Sanders, K. (2015). Do job-seekers with ‘white’ names get more callbacks than ‘black’ names?

PunditFact.com. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements

/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/