The Era Of Instant Fact-Checking
The Washington Post notes something that the candidates – from both parties – have failed to grasp. The age of the instant fact-checking mob has arrived. It has already caught a lot of people, again from both parties, this season. The do not appear to be learning very fast. But at least one analyst thinks they are being more cautious than they have in the past. Others think the lessons will eventually take hold.
When a candidate is caught making a clearly false statement, embarrassment or ridicule often ensues — and over time a reputation can form. But the electoral rewards derived from stretching the truth or distorting a rival's record just as frequently outweigh the fleeting political costs.
"I would not say that the level of honesty or deception is better or worse than in past campaigns," said Brooks Jackson, director of the Annenberg Political Fact Check, who has been truth-squadding political candidates since 1992. "It is a function of running for office that you want to say things that are pleasing to voters."
Some campaign operatives argue that candidates are becoming more cautious about their public pronouncements, for fear of being caught making a mistake. "I think candidates are being more careful," said Mike Gehrke, research director for the Democratic National Committee. He notes that the ease of retrieving information online has made it possible "to fact-check at a much more granular level than ever before." …..
…..The pressure of responding to attacks is unusually intense this election cycle because of the number of plausible contenders in both major political parties.
"It's become a multifront war," said David Bossie, president of the conservative advocacy group Citizens United. "Candidate A attacks candidate B, but then C and D pile on. You have to be on your toes at all times."
Campaign finance records show that the candidates have spent more than $110,000 on subscriptions to the LexisNexis family of databases over the past year. Most of the leading candidates employ half a dozen researchers, who comb the records of their competitors for the smallest mistake. All the campaigns are constantly shoveling out "fact checks" pointing out the errors of rivals.
Opposition research has been a staple of political campaigns for decades, but the Internet has made it easier to disseminate the information. Video of embarrassing moments collected by rival campaigns is routinely distributed on YouTube. When the Democratic National Committee in November unveiled FlipperTV, a Web site devoted to tracking video from Republican political events, it got 60,000 hits on the first day.
The Post shows a bit of bias here in dwelling more on Republican gaffes than on Democratic ones. But there may actually be a reason for that. The Republicans have tried to clarify what they said while the Post reports that Democrats caught out have, for the most part, refused to address errors. They have simply stonewalled.
The blogs play an important role in this new instant fact-checking process, of course. The old media, however, is still acting as the gatekeeper on this – as demonstrated in the Post story – by choosing which stories to play up nationally. But as the old media increasingly loses readership, that influence is inevitably going to wane. Look for bigger changes in future campaigns.
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » The Mad Magaizine School Of Journalism — December 30, 2007 @ 9:50 am
By H.A.Page, December 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
With new media I’m surprised how much the candidates aren’t learning. Many political consultants make a lot of cash but aren’t keeping up with the changing times. It is interesting how much has changed… and how so much stays the same…