Introduction
Who I am, why I wrote this book, why I care about good journalism, and why fact-checking isn’t good journalism.
History of Fact-Checking
Tracing the origin of fact-checking from its humble journalistic origins to the online world with Snopes to the current fact-checking landscape.
The Inherent Problems with
Today’s Fact-Checkers
The list is long: Fact-Checkers are journalists and therefore generalists, not experts; journalists are overwhelmingly liberal; and much more.
The Truth-O-Meter and
“Grading” Facts on a Spectrum
The problems with applying degrees of truth or falsity to statements. When a politicians numbers are off, Democrats are granted more leeway than Republicans.
Games Fact-Checkers Play
An introductory look at fact-checker bad behavior recounting an infamous episode where the gold standard of fact-checkers, PolitiFact, broke a series of journalistic norms.
'But'-ing True Statements into
varying degrees of Falsity
Examples of objectively true statements made by pundits and politicians that got downgraded because the fact-checker didn’t like the implication it made for their political allies (i.e. Democrats).
'But'-ing false statements into
varying degrees of truth
Fact-checkers are flexible. They can take objectively false statements, and with some misdirection and referencing unrelated facts, and turn them into something just “partly false” or even “mostly true.”
Rulings on Identical Facts Can Vary
Oddly, the identical statements made by politicians can yield different grades from fact-checkers depending on the political party the person represents.
Giving Democrats the Benefit of the Doubt, but not Republicans
When the absolute truth of a statement is in doubt, that doesn’t stop fact-checkers from doing their duty. The grade they finally award depends on the target of the statement and the person who made it.
Fact-checking Predictions or Hopes Without Waiting to See What Actually Happens
Fact-checkers too often attempt to embrace their inner seer by grading predictions about the future—something that “fact”-checking is woefully incapable of determining.
11. Changing Word Definitions
to Slant the Results
Bill Clinton was famously concerned about the meaning of the word “is.” Fact-checkers similarly change the meaning of common words in order to support some claims and attack others. They are the modern incarnation of Humpty Dumpty.
Combining or Dividing Statements to Raise or Lower the Overall Rating
We refer to this as the “tweezers or tongs” approach to fact-checking. When they investigate a statement they either use tweezers to pick out a phrase from a longer statement to check, or they use tongs to gather in topics that weren’t addressed. In either case, the ultimate goal is to often attack Republicans or boost Democrats.
Ruling on the “Impression” a
Statement May Give the Reader
Rather than educating a reader on an interesting claim or statement, fact-checkers will don the guise of the village idiot and determine whether or not the average reader will get the wrong impression.
Fact-Checks Without Rulings
Sometimes fact-checkers do their research and instead of using their Truth-O-Meter or Pinocchios, they decide that they’re better off just explaining what happened.
Investigating Claims, Then Abandoning the Fact-Check
Sometimes fact-checkers will make the calls, contact people making the claims and then…decide to move onto something else.
Rigging the Game
How would fact-checking look different if it was really just a Democratic public relations campaign? No different than it does today.
Using fact-checkers to squash speech
The expansion of social media, with its lack of the customary gate-keeping structure, led to a collaboration between outlets like Meta (Facebook), TikTok, Twitter/X and traditional fact-checkers.
The IFCN: Rotten to the Core
The International Fact-Checking Network purports to ensure that fact-checkers are independent, ethical and beholden to no political party or group. Unfortunately, they have instead turned into a fig leaf protecting their allies from criticism and ensuring that third-party cash continues to flow to fact-checkers.
Fact-Checkers and the Future
Fact-Checkers want to expand their powers over what you can see, hear, and read. Don’t let them.
