Make us your home page

Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily.

(View our Privacy Policy)

Times editor: 5 essential understandings of the fact-checking movement

Editor's note: Journalists from PolitiFact, the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking operation, recently attended the first Global Fact-Checking Summit in London, which brought together 50 fact-check journalists and academics from more than 20 countries, including India, South Africa, Serbia, Italy, Argentina and Chile. Two young journalists from Ukraine explained how they're using digital tools to expose Russian propaganda. Other Eastern European journalists discussed how to create independent fact-check operations when government controls the media. Times editor Neil Brown gave the keynote. Here is an edited version of his remarks.

We created PolitiFact seven years ago, and in that time, we've come to some essential understandings about the fact-checking movement.

1. Fact-checking is here to stay. Fact-checking is not a fad. Fact-checking is not a novelty. At PolitiFact, we are reminded of our reach and importance every day as we spread this mantra: Words matter. What a politician says matters. What the government says matters. And when they make a promise or a claim, fact-checking journalists will check it out.

Politicians everywhere are changing their rhetoric in response to this movement. Our reporters get their phone calls returned. The political staff starts working the refs; they want us to publish a ruling that supports what they think. We are starting to see that they change their talking points to mitigate their bosses' exaggerations.

Of course, when they agree with us, they praise us like crazy. When they disagree with us, they deride us like crazy. We are never ignored.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, on more than one occasion has said publicly, "I don't want to get 'PolitiFacted' here!" We have become a verb! That's how you know we're here to stay.

We are here to stay because we meet the definition of innovation — filling an unmet need. Consumers need our information, they want it, and they are responding to it. My belief after seven years is, this is special.

2. Independence is key to our success. The Tampa Bay Times recently published an article about a group called American Bridge, which supports Democratic candidates; it does not disclose where it gets its money. But it has a paid staff of 42 people following candidates it opposes all over the country, taking videos of them and researching everything written about them. … So far the group has collected 54,000 video clips — and many will find their way into political campaign ads.

We asked the Republicans what they think about it. They don't object: They have their own organizations trying to do the exact same thing. Can we count on the campaigns or the ad makers to present their research accurately and in full context? Of course not.

The manufacturing of truth has become an industry. That's where we come in — to provide independent analysis of that manufactured truth. Our job is to look at this material and to provide consumers some understanding of its veracity. But we can't succeed if we are not vigilant about being independent. In a very polarized society, independence is our lifeline.

Whether it is our funding sources, whether it is hiring journalists who are free of bias, whether it is our commitment to the craft of editing to make sure that we present this information as independent, whether it is reporting with enough independent, credible sources to defend our fact-checking rulings — our job is to show that we offer something extremely valuable: independent judgment.

3. Don't fear the half-truths, but don't hide behind half-truths, either. Our fact-checking sites use a lot of ratings. The most frustrating, even unsatisfying, rating is "Half True." But it is actually a gray world out there. And in fact, the most frequent corruption of facts comes when politicians and pundits or others take a gray, complicated situation and paint it as black-or-white. I'm all for taking a stand in our rulings and calling people out for their misstatements. But let's not be afraid to acknowledge when the reality is that the statement is partly true.

Politicians, government officials, pundits — they are all getting better at this game because the fact-check journalists are around. They are getting good at finding ways to make sure that at least some of what they say has a nugget of truth.

The price of our success with fact-check journalism is more Half Trues. The better we do our job, the more difficult our job will become. That said, we must not hide behind half-truths. Searching for balance out of fear of backlash will undermine the integrity of our work.

One other caution: We should not be a movement of nitpickers. Let's keep the bar high for fact-checking based on the consequence of the statement. And also, there's a place in our political life for oratory, eloquence, words that inspire people. We won't let people get away with unsupported claims. But let's not be an organization of joy killers who don't understand the power of speech to move people.

4. We can't judge our success by metrics alone. I believe our work is noble. Hence numbers cannot be the only measure of success.

Our Web traffic is growing, there is continued growth in our unique visitors; our social media shares continue to soar. But the cause of fact-checking is ultimately about putting power in the hands of citizens. Fact-checking gives citizens the power to participate in their public lives — the power to exercise their most important civil right — the ability to decide for themselves. Think about it: Candidates, political parties, super PACs, cable TV and radio shows, partisan bloggers — they all spend millions of dollars in order to shape what people believe. There are no question-and-answer sessions after you watch a campaign ad, there are no meaningful disclosures of where the information comes from. The politicians' strategy is clear: Say something strongly and frequently enough, and perhaps it will be accepted as truth. But thanks to fact-checking, citizens have their own set of tools to judge political speech. Giving people power to decide for themselves goes beyond empirical and quantifiable data. It is at the heart of independent journalism and makes ours a truly a noble cause.

5. Fact-checking has been good for politics and democracy, but it's important for journalism itself. The technology revolution and global recession have brought about change and fragmentation in traditional media. Thanks to the Internet, consumers are able to customize their own information gathering. Yet it is the cacophony and chaos of information on that Internet that has made our fact-checking operations matter than ever for the very industry that created it.

The beauty of fact-checking is that it's creative, it's got databases, and it combines the power of new media with old fashioned shoe-leather reporting to establish something powerful. In that way, fact-checking sites have brought a new relevance to journalism at a time of great upheaval. Yes, we've acknowledged that fact-checking is what journalists have always done in some way or another. That said, fact-checking has meant something appealing and relevant to new audiences — and that is good for journalism.

In closing, I'd like to share an experience I had last month. I was lucky enough to attend the luncheon awarding Pulitzer Prizes. The chair of the Pulitzer board, professor Danielle Allen, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., gave a great speech.

Professor Allen discussed the Declaration of Independence and noted that the authors presented their bill of particulars against the king of Britain with these words: "To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

In ways that I think have resonance to all of you, professor Allen, speaking to the Pulitzer gathering, elaborated on this lovely phrase, "a candid world":

"So what is a candid world? This is the core idea of democracy. Anybody and everybody can take part in analyzing and interpreting the shape and meaning of our world, divining the currents that are evident in the course of events. Anybody and everybody can use their findings together with good arguments to forge the collective decisions that will provide our best bridge to a decent future.

"The power of your work, an article, an essay, a photograph, a poem or a book, emanates from your philanthropic stance toward your audience, indeed toward humankind.

"You believe that we, your readers, have the capacity to assimilate, to respond to, and to judge a picture of the world. You too call out to a candid world."

This is what we fact-checkers are about, some of us working in difficult circumstances and using creativity to bring about a candid world. With independence and dedication to our craft, let us continue that great work.

Times editor: 5 essential understandings of the fact-checking movement 06/20/14 [Last modified: Friday, June 20, 2014 5:00pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2017 Tampa Bay Times


Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Nearly 40 hospitalized on first day Sunset Music Festival, on pace to exceed last year


    To reduce the number of medical emergencies this year, sponsors of the Sunset Music Festival promised heightened security and safety measures during this weekend's event at Raymond James Stadium.

    Thousands of people crowd the main stage at the Sunset Music Festival on Saturday in the north Raymond James Stadium parking area. The temperature at the time of the photo was 92 degrees. [LUIS SANTANA   |   Times]
  2. Woman killed in overnight Temple Terrace apartment fire, city says


    TEMPLE TERRACE — A woman died early Sunday as a result of a fire at an apartment complex, city officials said.

  3. Video: Indianapolis 500 drivers in fiery crash somehow walk away uninjured

    Auto racing

    Scott Dixon and Jay Howard avoided injury in a spectacular crash - or what Dixon labeled "a wild ride" afterward - during the Indianapolis 500 on Sunday.

  4. Homeland security chief defends Kushner's alleged proposal for 'back channel' to the Russians as 'a good thing"


    Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, the lone administration official to speak out publicly about reports that Jared Kushner sought a back channel to communicate with the Russian government, defended the move, saying it was a "good thing" for the U.S. government.

    Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, listens during a meeting with small business leaders at the White House on Jan. 30. [Washington Post photo by Jabin Botsford]
  5. After hard charging on health care in 2016, Marco Rubio is slow, careful


    As a presidential candidate, Marco Rubio pitched an Obamacare replacement and tore into Donald Trump for not having one. "What is your plan? What is your plan on health care? You don't have a plan," the Florida senator aggressively challenged in a February 2016 debate.