why i don't trust "fact checkers"

So, I got this in my inbox today.

Before: It's a fact check

Meryl Streep spent her acceptance speech commenting on the political environment. Donald Trump responded by tweeting that she's overrated. And the AP "factchecked" his opinion. Now, in all fairness to AP, the article doesn't actually render a verdict as to whether the assertion (that Streep is one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood) is true or not. In fact, they noted that it's a matter of opinion. The article then went on to catalogue the awards she has won, and ridicule Trump by comparison. The irony is that, while the intent was to point out how great an actress Streep is, the effect is to support Trump's assertion. Afterall, if someone is held in low esteem they can hardly be called over-rated (except in some kind of nasty sarcastic way -- as in when I note that a certain free newspaper is overpriced). But if

After: It's not a fact check

someone has received every award that an actress can* -- many of them multiple times -- then it's at least plausible that she is over-rated. Even vastly so. I express no opinion as to how Streep's acting compares to the level of the esteem in which she is held. But, while they do admit that Trump's statement was one of opinion and they simply ridicule it instead of labeling it as false, the fact remains that it was published as a "Fact Check." I do note that in the time between my getting an email with a link to the article and my writing this post, AP went in and changed the headline to remove the "Fact Check" label. I'm glad I have a capture from my screen. See above.


And this is one of many illustratives to explain why I don't trust the "fact-checkers." During the election season, some people were all gaga for "fact-checkers." All over Facebook they were citing findings about how Trump lied so much more than Clinton. And they were calling for live "fact-checking" of the debates. During the debates (the first, anyway -- I don't recall if it came up in the second or third debates ) Clinton even talked about hoping the "fact checkers" are hard at work.




So what could be objectionable? With all of the contradictory information being put out, isn't it good to have "fact checkers" to help us sort truth from lie? In a word, "no." More precisely, it would be good if the "fact-checkers" were simply, you know, checking facts. But they're not. The "fact checkers" are simply opinion journalists calling themselves "fact-checkers" in order to give their columns a patina of balance that they don't really deserve.


If you're fact-checking for a TV game show, things are relatively clear cut. Suppose the question is "With what team did all-time hit leader, Pete Rose, begin his Major league career?" If the answer names any team other than the Cincinnati Reds, then it's wrong. Maybe you go a step farther and confirm that Pete Rose is the all-time hit leader. The point is that game show questions are designed to have very well-defined answers. "What is the only even prime number?" 2 is the right answer. 3, 4 and 5 are not. But statements made in political speeches or opinion columns are often not so clear cut. They often rely on context and nuance. There may be statements that are technically true but being used deceptively. And there can be statements where everyone knows what the speaker means, and it's true, but the statement, as stated, is technically false. Then, there are statements of opinion or intention or expectation. And, of course, there are hyperbolic statements and metaphors that aren't meant to taken literally. I'm sure, if I think about it, I can come up with a bunch of other categories that can't easily be called "true" or "false."


To take a recent example of the last category I cited, consider this item from Politifact, which is considered one of the authoritative "fact-checkers." Trump was discussing trade agreements. To make the point that these are very complicated and we don't have anyone who can properly navigate the agreements, he said "It's like you have to be a grand chess master. And we don't have any of them." Politifact jumped on that. Citing the fact that the US does have chess grandmasters, they rated the statement "Pants on Fire," which is their bottom rank in terms of honesty. I'd like to say that this was an honest mistake. That, while I interpreted Trump's statement as a metaphor, Politifact's Louis Jacobson read it as a serious assertion of fact. But that strains credulity. It's as if I came in from a torrential rainstorm and said that it's raining cats and dogs, only to have someone call me a liar because it's actually just raining water. If Jacobson isn't an idiot, then he was being deliberately obtuse.

By contract, it's quite possible that the AP's Mark Kennedy wasn't intending his article to be a "fact check." The text never called it a "Fact Check." Also, as noted above, he acknowledged that Trump's statement was one of opinion and never did state that it was false. So maybe it was an overzealous headline writer made the jump from "Trump is wrong" to "Trump is lying" and took it upon itself to label the article as a Fact Check. But I digress -- only to avoid being unfair to Kennedy.

Getting back to the fundamental problems of "fact-checking," as I noted above, much of what is said in speeches and articles depends on nuance, choice of statistics, shades of meaning and the like. As to whether something is true or false, there is plenty of wiggle room to argue either way. The "fact-checkers," being mostly left-leaning, are generally likely to argue in favor of the Democrat. It's not that they're dishonest -- it's that they're human, and the human mind has plenty of tricks up its sleeve.

To take one example, consider this and this. When Bernie Sanders said the the black youth unemployment rate was 51%, Politifact figured out what government statistics he was using, and labeled his claim "mostly true." But when Trump made a substantially similar claim, they had no idea what he was talking about, and rated it "mostly false."

Eugene Volokh describes another example in which Politifact purposely chose to interpret one of Trump's claims about crime rates in such a way as to make it false, and thereby rated it "Pants On Fire." But if there is a relatively straightforward interpretation of a claim, and the claim is true under that straightforward interpretation (as was the case here), then it's dishonest to call the claim a lie.

With all the pitfalls that "fact-checking" entails, I am reminded that, during the election there were calls for live factchecking of the debates. Again, like the concept of "fact-checking" in general, there is some obvious appeal. With the back and forth and claims and counterclaims, it can be hard for the average voter to know who is telling the truth. But a good quality fact-checking, if it can be done, requires research. And with the time constraints that live "fact-checking" a debate would entail, more mistakes are bound to be made. Remember the 2012 election? Obama and Romney got into a verbal scrum over how long it took, after the Benghazi attack, for Obama to call it terrorism. Monica Crowley, CNN's moderator weighed in, saying that Obama was right. Afterwards, she acknowledged that Romney was correct on the substance (see video), but the damage was done. She single-handedly shifted the momentum of the debate because of what can most-charitably be described as a misguided attempt to provide clarity and move things along.

All these "fact checkers" and their opinion pieces? Print them if you like. But be honest. Label them as opinion pieces instead of "fact-checks." As far as your nuanced interpretations? I am actually more likely to take them seriously if they are not used to call someone a liar when he's not lying.

*For the record, in case any "fact-checkers" are reviewing this, that was meant as hyperbole. I am not seriously trying to claim that Streep has literally won every award an actress can.