That troublesome truth
 

COMMENTARY

LEONARD PITTS JR. JUST WHAT IS PARTISAN ABOUT THE FACTS?

Obama is a Muslim,” it said. “That is a FACT.”
As best I can recall — my computer ate the email — that was how the key line went in a reader missive that had me doing a double take last week. It was not the outlandish assertion that struck me but, rather, the emphatic claim of its veracity. We’re talking Shift-Lock and all-caps so there would be no mistaking: “Obama is a Muslim. That is a FACT.”
Actually, it is not a fact, but let that slide. We’re not here to renew the tired debate over President Barack Obama’s religion. No, we’re only here to lament that so many of us seem to know “facts” that aren’t and that one party — guess which
— has cynically nurtured, used and manipulated this ignorance for political gain.
Consider a recent trio of studies testing the effectiveness of fact-checking journalism. They were conducted for the nonpartisan American Press Institute, and their findings actually offer good news for those of us who fret over the deterioration of critical thinking and the resultant incoherence of political debate.
Researchers found, for instance that, although still relatively rare, fact-checking journalism has been growing fast and saw a 300 percent rise between 2008 and 2012. Also: Most Americans (better than 8 in 10) have a favorable view of political fact-checking. Best of all, exposure to fact-checking tends to increase respondent’s knowledge, according to the research.
But like stinkweed in a bouquet of roses, the studies also produced one jarringly discordant finding: Republicans are significantly less likely to view fact-checkers favorably. Among those with lower levels of political knowledge, the difference between Republican and Democratic voters is fairly small — 29 percent of Republicans have a favorable view, versus 36 percent of Democrats. Surprisingly, among those with higher levels of knowledge, the gap is vast: 34 percent of Republicans against 59 percent of Democrats.
The traditional rejoinder of the GOP faithful whenever you bring up such disparities in perception is that they mistrust “mainstream media” because it is biased against them. Putting aside the dubious validity of the claim, it’s irrelevant here. Fact-checking journalism is nonpartisan. One would be hard-pressed, for example, to paint PolitiFact as a shill for the donkey party given that it regularly dings Democrats and gave President Obama (“If you like your health plan, you can keep it”) its uncoveted Lie Of the Year award for 2013.
That being the case, one can’t help but be disheartened by this gap. What’s not to like about journalism that sorts truth from falsehood? What’s partisan about fact?
Nothing — you’d think. Except that, for Republicans something obviously is.
Perhaps we ought not be surprised given the pattern of party politics in recent years. On topics as varied as climate change, health care, terrorism and the president’s birthplace, GOP leaders and media figures have obfuscated and prevaricated with masterly panache, sowing confusion in the midst of absolute clarity, pretending controversy where there is none and finding, always, a ready audience of the fearful and easily gulled.
As a political strategy, it has been undeniably effective, mobilizing voters and energizing campaigns. As a vehicle for leadership and change, it has been something else altogether. When you throw away a regard for fact, you throw away the ability to have effective discourse. Which is why American political debates tend to be high in volume and low in content. And why consensus becomes impossible.
The API statistics documenting the lack of GOP enthusiasm for fact-checkers, ought to tell you something. Who could have a problem with a fact-checker? He or she is your best friend if what you’re saying is true.
You would only feel differently if what you’re saying is not.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Reach him at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

When the fact-checks are as false as the original subject matter then that's where we have a problem. Is much of anything on the up-and-up anymore?? Pretty near everything is manipulated, fraudulent, and deceptive for the personal gain of some.

Earl Landgrebe, I know you are posting here again

It just ain't true unless faux news or loudmouth Limbaugh preach it. The rest be damned!

Please, we've discussed this multiple times already.

Unless you want to continually embarrass and prove yourself to be uncreative, you simply HAVE to come up with a better slam than the tired and worn out phrase "Faux News"

I mean ... it really sounds pretty dumb.

It only sounds dumb to the sheep that are guided in their every thought and utterance by it. Faux, meaning artificial or fake is a perfect description of Roger Ailes Right wing propaganda outlet, nothing dumb, or more importantly, incorrect about it.

I would like to know how one who dilikes Fox News is so adept at what they say and do to be able to compare and comment?
Just kidding.
We all know they know nothing at all about what Fox News presents. They don't need to know. Why? Easy.
Their stock answer to ANYTHING in opposition to their cause.
Also shallow and boring and demeaning to others in their party.......as if that matters!

All the MSNBC lovers on PF should probably start DVR'ing their favorites shows because it sounds like the channel won't be around that much longer.

Peacock Down: NBC News, MSNBC suffered revenue declines in 2014 - POLITICO.com

An excerpt:

...Meanwhile, MSNBC suffered catastrophic ratings declines as its programming drew increasingly stale and irrelevant. Its total viewership was down 14 percent from 2013, to a daily median of just 334,000 viewers. Those losses resulted in a 5 percent decline in ad revenue, which brought total revenue down 1 percent from 2013. Meanwhile, CNN’s revenue was projected to rise by 3 percent, while Fox News' revenue was projected to rise 6 percent

NBC and any of it's affiliates are just too politically polarized. They are nothing more than a democratic liberal one for one amplifier/parrot.

And that in and of itself gets old and yesterday's news very quickly.....just like here on this forum.

MSNBC deserves to die, as does fox news. Both present totally slanted and biased views which confuse issues and tend to feed into their viewers prejudices. Neither network serves the public good. If one has to hear and see only that which fits their worldview, they will remain blissfully ignorant of the broad issues that confront us.

Fortunately there are many alternative resources.

Well, you have a problem. Right now, people are able to watch whatever channel they wish at least until the radical liberals ultimately outlaw that through some fraudulent future FCC ruling or whatever.

The current freedom stems from the first amendment as well as basic market forces involving supply/demand. People prefer Fox News because it covers news other networks often don't, and Fox has an entreating lineup of personalities ... Bill O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly etc.

MSNBC is going down the tubes because people are simply changing the channel and refusing to watch it.

In the meantime, we will all nonetheless try to be as objective and enlightened as you are by reading the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NPR and other 100% neutral, objective media sources ... right?

You are obviously one that remains blissfully ignorant of the broad issues that face us today.

I have a hard time watching Bill OReilly for too long only because he has such a large ego. However he does a good job of hitting everyone and anyone head on. Megan Kelly, like O'Reilly and a number of other news people on Fox are hard hitting and clearly demonstrate that they do their homework.

On the other hand the alphabet stations MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC clearly show their bias by ignoring news that they view is unfavorable for liberals or rewrit its history. People who gt their news from alphabet stations would do as well to get news from The Today Show, The View or The Talk

so doesn't it make sense that if you have news people who throw soft pitches questions as if they were celebrity reporters rather than than news people looking for the truth that something is wanting. ....So Mr. Obama what's your favorite color? do you really floss after every meal?

Personal Best Regards:

Actually quite the opposite. I'm pretty much up to date on all the broad issues because I read or watch all types of media from across the spectrum -- with the exception of msnbc because it's just too mind numbing

When you read all sources you can readily tell where the ideological emphases or preferences are. It's pretty obvious actually.

Question-- do you actually ever watch fox or read national review .. or do you just attack them? Not trying to be pointed about it btw ... just asking.

:agree:

There are two aspects to news organizations: hard news and opinion. The Fox hard news (Bret Baier for example) is clearly the best of cable and broadcast as they are unbiased. The CNN, MSN, and broadcast (NBC, CBS, and ABC) hard news is clearly biased towards the left. The Fox opinion is right leaning but certainly fairer than MSN and CNN as they almost always provide a left wing perspective (The Five, for example, always has a left-winger on the panel). MSN and CNN opinion is pure left wing. Network opinion is left wing leaning but better than MSN and CNN. FOX totally dominates MSN and CNN in the cable news ratings. This is because MSN and CNN have weak programming that only appeals to the extreme left-wingers.

My guess....what they do not realize is their response is so pervasive....so automatic....so unexpected...NOBODY pays any attention to the empty ongoing catharsis of opposition to Fox news commentary.

:BigApplause: :agree:

Who will ever forget Karl Rove roaming the halls of Fox News studios on election night 2012 saying "no, no, no it can't be over", but credit goes to the vote counters who said "yes Karl, we are 99.9% sure Ohio is going to Obama".

How can one network get it so wrong when they actually thought Mitt Romney was going to win when he lost in a landslide?

You likely know you're making a specious argument so this response is probably not needed but ... a commentator got it wrong, not the entire network.

Why would you logically try to extrapolate from one specific instance to a broad generalization?

You do have to admit that Fox News does have some mighty good looking babes working as their commentaters. They are somewhat in the fluff department and have been paid well to act as conservative as they are bodacious.

As for Fox's "The Five" having a liberal on the panel, that is true - although the liberal will make a point (valid or not) and then the remaining four will gang up on the liberal and talk over him - oftentimes changing the subject - so the original topic is lost.

All in all, Fox News does provide a basically entertaining news commentary and, as I said before, the babes are a good feature. That woman former prosecuter, Perino, is an exception to that statement. How can anyone stand her screeching and grating voice?

Be careful, very very careful, when using the terms "screeching and grating voice" when describing ANY female lest the reader naturally assume you are talking about Hillary Clinton.

After all, what difference does it make?? :)

Several women on Fox have law degrees. Also, Perino is a former Press Secretary in the Bush administration. She is not a former prosecutor. Also, they aren't paid to be conservative, they are conservative. Your comments about woman are insulting. I would be willing to guess that they have all accomplished more in their lives than you.

Cute, but I made it very clear that the screeching and grating voice was Jeannine Perino.

By the way, the "what difference does it make" remark was regarding the fact that 4 people had been killed and it really made no difference if it was by a well-planned attack or a spur of the moment one caused by a film. Sec. Clinton was angry at the grandstanding of the panel. Her outburst of anger was what any reasonable person would have done.

I have no affection for Sec. Clinton as leader of the country but she does have an excellent chance unless we are able to find an electable candidate. That has not been done yet.

Because nobody would have ever thought a person from obscureity with NO experience in anything but social organization would win.

Totally underestimated how many republicans did not go to the poles to vote.

Totally underestimated how many Americans would buy into the Obama smoke job.

And as far as who got it wrong or right? That really isn't determined until after the election is it?

I have several democratic friends who did not vote for Obama (OMG they did what?). These same folks predicted he would lose.

Someone from within the party that does not buy what they are selling! OK you name callers, what label do you have for your fellow democrats with an opposing view?

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about who actually, and literally, screeches. It hurts my ears, and head, to listen to her

tape of hillary screeching - Bing Videos


tape of hillary screeching - Bing Images

Oh, you mean Jeanine Perino, not Dana Perino. Yes, she is a former prosecutor and she does not have a grating voice. You probably need a hearing exam.

It is actually Pirro.

There were and still are a lot of us who do think it made and still makes a difference. For those who think not they either missed the point or like Clinton trying to make it seem trivial in the overall.

So they are hot babes with law degrees. Hot babes with money from their well paid jobs are even better. As you can see, you were wrong - also - about Jeannine Perino. She is NOT a hot babe. She would not look good even after 7 beers.

In fact, I am surprised that Fox would hire such an uggo as Perino or Pirro or whatever her name is. They should have stuck with the hot babes with law degrees.

be very very careful when talking about hot babes with law degrees lest someone think you are talking about Clinton

:1rotfl:
:1rotfl:

:duck:

Now that's calling the kettle black. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

First, of all I'm SHOCKED that you, as a card-carrying Liberal, would demean any woman by using the term "uggo." Normally, one could expect a liberal firestorm of criticism but since you have good intentions, you'll get a pass.

Second, the Judge is very fit ... check out her hot body some time.

Third, if Jeanine is not your type, I'm wondering if you should stick to the Candy Crowley types more prevalent on CNN / MSNBC?

You're talking "hot" as in hot flashes when you refer to Hillary, correct?

I thought a uggo was an auto from Yugoslavia. What are you guys talking about?

Honestly, I do not ever watch CNN or MSNBC.

I think my Liberal card expired when Jimmy Carter was President.

Jay Leno once said the Yugo had rear window defrosters so your hands wouldn't get cold when pushing it in the winter.

You are an idiot and a troll. Crawl back under the bridge from whence you came.