Xark!

Why Fact Checkers fail

My interest in fact-checking grew out of years of running political coverage in the Carolinas, in places where facts were often far less important than the nameless angers that animate our Southern culture. Doing that job is, in fact, a political act, though not a partisan one.

A political editor walks the line between trying to find the truth and trying to publish the truth, and must constantly compromise the latter in the service of the former. That's because when the balance of truth favors one party over the other, presenting it that way destroys the journalistic fiction that Jay Rosen dubbed "The View From Nowhere." Media companies like that view because, in theory at least, it allows them to sell their newspapers (or TV programs) to the entire electorate. 

In other words, if the Republican Party produces 10 fact-mangling whoppers to every arcane Democratic stat-fudger, you've got a serious problem as a journalist. You simply can't present that ratio as-is without looking like a liberal hack. 

So here's what we did -- what I did -- and what others have certainly done as well: I downplayed Republican dishonesty while judging Democratic failings with an unfairly harsh bias. I applied this to assignments, to the tone and presentation of stories, and to the various gimmicks we invented to try to evaluate claims. The results didn't reflect the true scale of the dishonesty gap, but they at least demonstrated that a gap existed. At least, they had the potential to demonstrate the gap, but only to very careful readers with a knack for drawing subtle inference. Because we could never come out and tell you what we all knew in the newsroom: Yes, "all politicians lie" (a cynical dodge if ever there was one), but the modern Republican Party is based on a set of counter-factual and faith-based beliefs, and has been for years. Not only has that foundation consistently put the party on the wrong side of fact-checkers, it has led us to where we stand today, with Mitt Romney running a campaign that has abandoned even the pretense of fact.

That dynamic is why, when I saw the rise of new media in the mid-2000s, one of my first thoughts was that journalists might be able to use technology to improve the way we cover and evaluate political issues. I studied it. I experimented with it. And eventually I came to an unhappy conclusion: 

All attempts at systematic fact-checking of political statements will ultimately fail until the organization conducting them embraces an indepedent and verifiable claim to authority. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs.

The Laws of Combat: They're not just for G.I.s anymore

I heard a bunch of these back in the Army, and today there are multiple lists that purport to be The Laws of Combat. Most of these lists include plenty of rendundant, overly clever "laws" I never heard in uniform, and I'm generally not impressed by them. 

 

So this is my edit, the way I remember things. I like to think of it as the fatalistic-but-still-grinning core of the LoC, with winking grunt wisdom that extends beyond combat to life in general.

• If the enemy is in range, so are you.
• Incoming fire has the right-of-way.
• The easy way is always mined.
• Try to look unimportant. They may be low on ammo.
• Teamwork is essential. It gives them someone else to shoot at.
• If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointed AT you.
• The enemy diversion you've been ignoring is their main attack.
• A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to take a break.
• If your attack is going well, it's an ambush.
• Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing.
• If you build a position that's tough for the enemy to get into, you won't be able to get out of it.
• Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.
• When you've secured an area, be sure to tell the enemy.
• Never forget that the equipment on which your life depends was all manufactured by the lowest bidder.
• Friendly fire isn't.
• Never: Stand when you can sit; sit when you can lie down; stay awake when you can go to sleep.
• A grenade with a seven-second fuse will go off in four.
• If it's stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid.

And lastly, as a special bonus:

The Five Stages of a Military Operation:

1. Enthusiasm; 
2. Disillusioment; 
3. The search for the guilty; 
4. The punishment of the innocent; 
5. Praise and honors for the non-participants.