Journalists and reporters fact-check. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I do not believe main-stream media is run by journalists or reporters. Also, just because someone either has a press pass or has their name on a byline, it does not make them a journalist or a reporter. Fact-checking should be a frontline tool in determining who is a journalist or reporter and who is a hack, spin-meister, or out-and-out deceiver. This is not to say that those who present the news won't make mistakes; but how they handle their mistakes, and their body of work should allow them to be judged on their intent and integrity.
The big problem I see is that we, the consumers of news and media, on the whole blindly digest whatever we are "fed." Questions arise in my mind about "who fact-checks the fact-checkers?" Perhaps it all starts with educating people that there is a problem. I was always told not to come to the table with a problem without also bringing a proposed solution. The fallacy of this is that whereas problems may be easily recognizable, solutions can be just as elusive and hard to figure out. Therefore, I would amend what I learned to say, "come to the table, perhaps not with a solution, but a willingness to work on one." Craig did not have an answer either, but he started with recognition of a problem, along with information on solutions, and a statement of his desire to assist with coming up with a solution. Furthering the discourse is part of moving toward a solution. In the medium where I am writing this, and with the limited audience I have, I hope I further the discourse to even one or two more people; then the time it took to tap this out on my cell phone was not just shouting into the wind.
So, solutions… As I see it, any post, essay, or letter such as this is a jumping off point. This provides a nice segue to the ideas that came to my mind after finishing Craig's article.
(1) Recognize the problem; in this case, fact-checking. Not doing anything, well, doesn't do anything. At least put something out there to the public to spark some forward momentum.
(2) I remember writing papers in high school and college. We were required to have footnotes, endnotes, bibliographies, or some equivalent references. I see this more in main-stream media to avoid plagiarism and lawsuits, not to fact-check.
(3) Disclaimers. We have disclaimers on food such as, "Consuming raw or undercooked meat, seafood or egg products can increase your risk of foodborne illness." Perhaps we should have disclaimers at the beginning of news shows and within print media to point out our, as consumers, responsibility to question what we are told and either fact-check it ourselves or verify that it is being fact-checked and that we trust the fact-checking.
(4) Nobody is immune to fact-checking; i.e., anything any of us write in our e-mails or on a forum or social media post is just as important for us to check the facts of what we are saying as it is for main-stream media or "professional" publications. I get so many e-mails forwarded to me that a quick trip to "snopes.com" or Internet search discredits before I forward it to friends and family, putting my name behind it as valid information. When I post, I try to look things up to make sure I'm not passing on misinformation, and if I don't know or have a bias, I try to say so.
(5) With enough fact-checking groups or organizations, or just multitudes of individuals, I think "correct" information will bubble to the top of the media heap. Outlets with an abundance of "correct" information will bubble to the top of the heap of "networks" or "aggregators" of information.
(6) Facts should not be confused with opinions. For example, I believe I could propose a fact that a piece of granite the size of my fist, if thrown at my head, and successfully hitting me, would injure me. No matter what your religious, political, or ethical background, I think we could agree on that. Now, my opinion is that nobody should do such a thing to me. Someone else may have a differing opinion and put forth circumstances where it is justified to throw fist-sized pieces of granite at my head. My opinion is we need to get beyond the arguments and misinformation on the facts and concentrate on the beliefs and implications that arise from how we perceive the facts.
Okay, frankly I am out of steam. I am happy that I read Craig's article and that it brought me into the discourse, made me think, and ultimately pushed me to solidify my own ideas and opinions on this topic. If sharing his article, or my ramblings on it, are useful to anyone else, then I'm even happier.
Embedded Link
Restoring Fact-checking
Recently, Jeff Jarvis held an event on restoring fact-checking to the news business. Here's my very brief attempt at getting my head around what happened and what's happening with big deal fac…
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
+Paula Jones Thanks for the +1. There are days (most days) that I feel like adding an animated gif or picture of a cat to anything I post. 😉
I wonder if there's more to it. I think 'education' is letting society down.
People in authority are presumed to be honest and accurate, and those who question are punished. In the US, anyway, that process starts young. Children aren't encouraged to question their teachers, but rather to accept what they are told. I recall getting in trouble when I contradicted my 6th grade teacher when she said the humans were going to 'evolve to not have eyebrows because women keep plucking them.'
Last year, my 3rd grade boy asked if he could keep the crayfish from his 'crayfish in the classroom' program. SO and I said probably, but asked what species. He asked his teacher, and she said 'It's a Freshwater Crayfish.' Teacher didn't know, and rather than find out, she just gave an answer that was meaningless. So, he comes home and gets to learn about scientific names, and starts thinking teachers aren't perfect…and while I don't advocate becoming a problem child, I will stand by encouraging him to question his teachers!
+Sheila Garl I think you are correct. There are exceptional teachers out there but I think they are becoming exactly that, the exception, and not the norm. I feel the same way if I am pulled over for a traffic violation or if I were to have to appear in court. It's not just about being polite and following procedures; but I think we are expected by the authority figures to keep quiet and accept whatever is doled out to us. In the realm of what my post was talking about, none of this leads us to reach out and question, or fact check, but instead to remain quiet. In a nod to your 6th grade teacher, we are going to evolve into a society of complacent sheep…
Hi Scott. Good article but, if you go back in US history, its often the most sensational stories that sell the newspapers. Especially these days with 30 second sound bites, people seem less interested in facts than in confirming their version of reality.
+Paula Jones Very true. The operative word is "sell" and when news becomes a business and articles of news the "commodity" then the focus is truly in the wrong place. As in any industry, it is cheaper to produce lower quality goods made of lower quality materials. If the public will accept the "good" then why bother doing more? It is much harder to produce fact-checked news, or in a more cynical way of looking at it, it is much easier to produce lies and misinformation. With news, it's not causing cancer or product liability lawsuits when brakes fail and you go careening into a tree. So, easier to produce, less liability when you put out a shoddy product, and people keep accepting it. We are, as consumers of main-stream media, in a lot of trouble.
When I studied journalism a hundred years ago, we were warned about big companies taking over the news media. It used to be that big companies couldn't own all the media (TV, radio, papers) in an area – but those laws are gone. As media was sold off to big corporation, it became amazingly homogenized. The only hope is the Internet., but even here people tend to watch news that agrees with their world views.
I realized that I had more faith in John Stewart than a 'real' news show…and quit watching TV news. I haven't gotten a daily newspaper in 15 years for much the same reason. Reading the news online just makes more sense, as I can immediately research things so long as I can avoid the 'repeaters' in researching for sources.
+Paula Jones Was just referencing confirmation bias for another conversation I was in. +Sheila Garl Honestly, did the same thing with John Stewart. Although, I do still watch Keith Olbermann and have an affinity for Rachel Maddow. I have to watch out for my own confirmation bias, though. I enjoy reading online, but end up a lot at Huffington, so have to be careful again with that bias thing. 😉
+Paula Jones +Sheila Garl Pertinent to this conversation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/mitt-romney-ad_b_1117288.html
Hi +Scott Cramer Yes, I read that this afternoon and agree totally with it. Reporters just quote sound bites whether they are true or not.
Part and parcel…don't question, don't think.
It's safer that way, right?