“Missteps” Of A “Fact Checker”

For years I've been growing more and more skeptical of people who appoint themselves the task of “fact checking”. Any practitioner of critical thinking worth his salt should be quick to ask, who checks the fact checker? So when I saw an October 4^th AP article by Calvin Woodward “fact checking” the first Romney Obama debate, I decided I'd do just that, check the fact checker.

You can find his October 4th fact checking efforts here. 

Woodward chose to go back and forth between the two candidates in such a way that an uninformed neutral observer might conclude that he's found an equal number of what he calls “missteps” from each, but appearances can be misleading. The first problem I came across was when Woodward discussed the following line from Romney.

Obama's health care plan "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."

Woodward wrote, “Romney seems to be resurrecting the assertion that Obama's law would lead to rationing, made famous by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's widely debunked allegation that it would create "death panels."”

“Widely debunked”? Really? The word “debunked” is a very strong word. It means something has been shown to be factually incorrect to the point it should no longer be taken seriously, and yet the Cato Institute takes Sarah Palin's allegation very seriously as is explained in the linked article, Death Panels- Sarah Palin Was Right.   I wont dispute that the Cato Institute has a clear bias, but its support for Palin's analysis with its own belies the use of a strong word like “debunked”. A difference in analysis between those that see “death panels” rising out of Obamacare and those that don't is not a dispute of facts but of interpretation of facts and perhaps semantics.  Now unfortunately for Calvin Woodward or anyone else who uses “debunked” to describe Sarah Palin's assertion, he is the one being factually incorrect.

A lesser problem with Woodward's so called “fact checking” was where Romney said there were 23 million Americans out of work, and Woodward said Romney was getting to 23 million by adding under-employed and those classified as having given up looking to just 12.5 million officially classified as unemployed. I don't know if Woodward knows what it's like to be under-employed or unemployed so long that the system starts to lose track of you, but in my book the distinction between that and unemployed is a very fine one, not enough of one to call Romney on it. As a matter of fact, I very much suspect that most of those suffering were glad to hear Romney acknowledge their unfortunate plight. When Romney says 23 million unemployed instead of the official technical 12.5 million, he says that unlike Obama, he sees our plight. That's the number of us with expenses greater than our income, no matter how some bureaucrats may choose to break us up beyond that very fundamental reality. No fact checking needed here.  Romney was right on the mark.

Those were the two big ones. The rest seemed pretty fair though a tad nitpicky, so I then read the responses to the article. The pro-Obama people seemed to be the most upset with Woodward. Many comments argued Woodward was equating out right lies from Romney with questionable analysis by Obama, and that it was Woodward trying too hard to seem fair. Of course I didn't share their views. There were no lies from Romney to bring out, and Woodward seemed to agree with me at least to that extent.

This led me to do a little research on the kinds of reactions Calvin Woodward has gotten beyond this one article, and I was surprised. Both the right and the left have qualms with his “fact checking”.

Jim Naureckas of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) seems to think Woodward is biased towards Romney and against Obama. You can read some of what he has to say about it here. Some of his points about Woodward mistaking a difference in analysis and sources with "missteps" I agree with. But, from the examples Naureckas gives I don't see clear evidence that Woodward is particularly biased for or against either candidate. By all appearances Woodward isn't holding either man to any different standard. It is the reasoning within that standard that may be the problem, not any direction it may tilt.

Coming from the other direction, Tom Blumer of Newsbusters.org seems to see Woodward as biased against Republicans. You can read some of his points here. Like Naureckas and myself, he catches Woodward picking and choosing the analysis and sources he'll consider valid and declaring assertions based other sources as misleading. Where I don't necessarily agree with Blumer is that Woodward slants his analysis towards Obama or necessarily against Republicans. I may change my mind on this, given yet even more facts, but for now I think Woodward's bias is primarily in his reasoning and methods.

The two points from his October 4^th “fact checking” make good enough examples to illustrate my conclusion. In the Sarah Palin “Death Panels” example Woodward was caught trusting certain circles of sources too much. Just because all the people you talk to who you think are smart and educated tell you something has been debunked, doesn't mean it has been. That goes for just about anything else you may be tempted to run off and treat as fact. Consensus shouldn't offer a sense of comfort to an earnest fact checker, rather it should make them all the more suspicious. Woodward seems to have missed this thus far in his noble pursuit.

In the 23 million people without jobs example, Woodward must have seen ample cover in just being technically nitpicky, and trying not to allow any affective thinking to muddle his objectivity (Yes, I meant “affective” not “effective”). The problem with this approach seems to me to be twofold. How far do you technically nitpick? At what point do you stop? There's almost not a conversation or communication to be found that can't be picked to beyond comprehension if one chooses to be hyper-technical. You have to stop at some point just to be reasonable. The other part of the problem is that you simply cannot avoid making some kind of subjective decision in your analysis, either by not getting hyper-technical in the first place or in deciding at what point you will stop.

My suggested answer to the technical nitpicking conundrum is to allow a little affective analysis to inform the rest, just be sure to acknowledge it.

e.g. “Romney's reference to 23 million out of work seems to refer to the total number of people who are either unemployed, under-employed, or have become too discouraged to look, since the official number of unemployed is ...”

I could probably put my advice more succinctly by simply saying, “have a heart”. To the fact-checkers out there I say, be ever so careful not to abuse the trust people place in you. And to everyone else I'd say, don't take the fact-checkers' words for anything. Benefit from their research and thought but please do your own thinking and where you deem necessary, your own research.