[EL] Fact-checking
Lori Minnite
lminnite at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 08:44:42 PDT 2012
It's a bit of a sad commentary on journalism today that says we need
government-sponsored fact-checking of anything, or media-sponsored
fact-checking of itself. Isn't fact-checking the function and duty of a
free press in a democracy?
Lori Minnite
On 9/28/2012 10:11 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> Ah, there's nothing like waking up to multiple attacks on the
> listserv! I am at a conference and so I will have to respond later.
> In the meantime, you might look at my actual paper, which explains
> the basis for my defense of such commissions. And we have an actual
> commission in Ohio, which I discuss in the paper.
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 7:33 AM, "Sean Parnell"
> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>> wrote:
>
>> I suggest we run a pilot program for 'fact-checking'or 'false
>> statements' in politics,except we do it with the media instead. Maybe
>> juststart withafewof thelargest outlets in the country, just to see
>> how it goes and work out any kinks? So, we could have the finest
>> 'fact checkers' in the country monitor the/New York Times/, NBC News,
>> and while we're at it the Huffington Post (since more Americans are
>> turning to the web these days for news), and maybe a few other
>> outlets as wellfor the accuracy of their coverage, and hand out
>> penalties for anything in the paper considered to be false,
>> inaccurate, or misleading. As a value-added service,
>> thegovernmentfact checkers could offer to pre-clear every story
>> before it's released, giving it their stamp of approval and
>> indemnifying the media outlet for any inaccuracies that might somehow
>> slip through or later bediscovered.Maybe we do it for one year, see
>> how it goes? There's always the question of who gets to appoint the
>> fact checkers,perhapsthe President could appointa Truth Czar who
>> needs to be confirmed by the Senate? And if the Senate balks or
>> delays, why that's what recess appointments (whether the Senate is or
>> is not officially in recess) are for. Can't imagine any problems here...
>>
>> I'd truly love to hear an argument on why this is or is not a good
>> idea from those who favor any sort of government fact-checking/false
>> speech regulations for candidates.
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>>
>> 6411 Caleb Court
>>
>> Alexandria, VA 22315
>>
>> 571-289-1374 (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Lowenstein, Daniel
>> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:27 AM
>> To: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
>> Subject: [EL] Fact-checking
>>
>> I have read Rick's paper, which he was good enough to send me,
>> on regulating false campaign statements. As one would expect given
>> the author, the paper gives a careful review of how current First
>> Amendment doctrine is likely to affect various types of possible
>> regulation and identifies the kinds of regulation that have a fair or
>> good chance to survive in an area in which the Constitution is not
>> friendly to regulation.
>>
>> Somewhat to my surprise, Rick is friendly in the paper to the
>> idea of "fact-checking" by government agencies (though it's not
>> entirely clear whether he is saying only that such an enterprise has
>> a fair chance of being upheld or is supporting it as a policy
>> matter). In this connection, I think it is relevant that Rick notes
>> but does not go much into the criticisms of fact-checking by the press.
>>
>> The most trenchant criticism that I know of has come from a
>> series of writings by Mark Hemingway in the Weekly Standard. Rick
>> opens his article with two examples of fact-checking, one nailing
>> Obama and the other Romney. The Romney example is that fact-checkers
>> have condemned his ads claiming that the Obama administration
>> threatens to gut the work requirement of Clinton-era welfare reform.
>>
>> As it happens, Hemingway has a lengthy article in the current
>> issue of the Weekly Standard focussing on this very point.
>> Seehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-s-palace-guard_652895.html.
>> Hemingway makes what appears on its face to be a strong argument that
>> Romney's claim is accurate, but I don't know nearly enough about
>> welfare to have an independent opinion on that. In any event,
>> Hemingway makes an overwhelming case that the fact-checkers who have
>> condemned Romney on this have been at best extremely inept and most
>> likely acting in some degree of bad faith.
>>
>> Anyone interested in this subject should also read
>> Hemingway's more general criticism of fact-checkers, "Lies, Damned
>> Lies, 'Fact-Checking," published last December, which is also
>> extremely persuasive.
>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lies-damned-lies-and-fact-checking_611854.html
>>
>> There are many reasons why fact-checking in the context of
>> political debate is highly problematic and should be considered with
>> great skepticism. Hemingway makes a strong case that the currently
>> prominent fact-checkers are biased, but even if they were not at all
>> biased, the problems would run deep. Needless to say, none of the
>> above suggests any doubt about the right of the press to engage in
>> fact-checking to it's heart's content. But I hope institutionalized
>> fact-checking by the government would be found unconstitutional.
>> Whether or not it would be, it seems to me an inherently Orwellian
>> enterprise that ought to be strongly opposed.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Daniel H. Lowenstein
>>
>> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free
>> Institutions (CLAFI)
>>
>> UCLA Law School
>>
>> 405 Hilgard
>>
>> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>>
>> 310-825-5148
>>
>>
>> "Americans say Obama's ads are more honest, but expect both sides to
>> lie, Esquire/Yahoo poll finds"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=40731>
>>
>> Posted on September 27, 2012 10:57
>> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=40731> by Rick
>> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Yahoo News
>> reports<http://news.yahoo.com/esquire-yahoo-news-poll-romney-ads-lie-more-both-dishonest.html>.
>>
>> My new
>> paper<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618> on
>> whether there is a constitutional right to lie in campaigns and
>> elections begins:
>>
>> Election 2012 may well go down in history as the "4 Pinocchios
>> Election." It is perhaps no coincidence that the current election
>> season has seen both a rise in the amount of arguably false campaign
>> speech and the proliferation of journalistic "fact checkers" who
>> regularly rate statements made by candidates and campaigns.
>> Journalistic ratings such as Politifact's "Truth-o-meter" rank
>> candidate statements from from "true" and "mostly true" to "false"
>> and even "pants on fire." The Washington Post rating system, which
>> relies upon the judgment of its fact checker, Glenn Kessler, uses 1
>> to 4 "Pinocchios" for false statements. The granddaddy of fact
>> checking groups, Factcheck.org <http://Factcheck.org>, while avoiding
>> a rating system, offers analysis which regularly describes
>> controversial campaign claims as "false" or "wrong.
>>
>> Both the Romney and Obama presidential campaigns have received
>> stinging ratings from fact checkers. The Washington Post's Fact
>> Checker, Glenn Kessler, gave the Obama campaign "4 Pinocchios" for
>> claiming that Mitt Romney, while working at Bain Capital,
>> "outsourced" jobs and was a "corporate raider." Romney's campaign
>> similarly got "4 Pinocchios" for claiming there was an "Obama plan"
>> to weaken federal welfare law and issue welfare checks to people who
>> do not work."
>>
>> Romney's campaign has seemed to bear more of the brunt from the
>> fact-checking enterprise. Based solely upon Kessler's subjective
>> assessment of truth, by mid-September 2012 the Washington Post fact
>> checker rated Romney ads and statements with an average of 2.33
>> Pinocchios to Obama's 1.96. Perhaps the greatest media attack on the
>> truthfulness of Romney's campaign came in response to the acceptance
>> speech of Romney's running-mate, Representative Paul Ryan, which the
>> New York Times described as containing "a number of questionable or
>> misleading claims."
>>
>> Whether campaigns are resorting to lies and distortion more often
>> than in previous elections, and if so why they are doing so, are
>> interesting questions beyond that which I can explore in this brief
>> Article. False and misleading speech may be increasing thanks to the
>> proliferation of the Internet and a decline in uniform trustworthy
>> sources of news, such as the national news networks and major
>> newspapers. Political polarization also may play a role, with
>> partisans egged on to believe unsupported claims by the modern day
>> partisan press, in the form of FOX News, MSNBC, and liberal and
>> conservative blogs and websites.
>>
>> Fact check operations also are controversial to journalists, who have
>> always been in the business of resolving conflicting factual claims
>> as part of the news gathering process. Some journalists take issue
>> with the effectiveness of fact checkers. Media critic Jack Shafer
>> declares, "Give [candidates] a million billion Pinocchios and they'll
>> still not behave." Others defend the "fact check" process but see
>> them losing their effectiveness.
>>
>> In 2012, fact checking itself came under attack from the right, with
>> some advancing the claim that fact checkers are a biased part of the
>> "liberal media."Neil Newhouse, the Romney campaign's pollster,
>> proclaimed that "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by
>> fact-checkers." It was an odd turn to see conservatives seeming to
>> embrace a kind of post-modern relativism in which truth is now in the
>> eyes of the beholder.
>>
>> In this highly charged partisan atmosphere, in which each side cannot
>> agree upon the basic facts, mudslinging has become terribly common,
>> and the media are not able to meaningfully curb candidates' lies and
>> distortions, it is tempting to consider federal and strengthened
>> state legislation to deter and punish false campaign speech. Why not
>> let courts or commissions sort out truth from fiction? Indeed, a
>> number of states already have laws in place which provide some
>> government sanction for false campaign speech.
>>
>> [cid:part5.01040804.06020009 at law.uci.edu]<mailto:[cid:part5.01040804.06020009 at law.uci.edu]><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D40731&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20say%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20ads%20are%20more%20honest%2C%20but%20expect%20both%20sides%20to%20lie%2C%20Esquire%2FYahoo%20poll%20finds%E2%80%9D&description=<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D40731&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20say%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20ads%20are%20more%20honest%2C%20but%20expect%20both%20sides%20to%20lie%2C%20Esquire%2FYahoo%20poll%20finds%E2%80%9D&description=>>
>>
>> Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120928/66dff7b7/attachment.html>
View list directory