"'Lying Used to Have Greater Consequences': Insights From a Fact Checker on the Battlefield Against Truth"
A seasoned professional in the industry discusses the ongoing conflict regarding truth and its implications for the year 2024.
TroibNews 
The Biden administration misappropriated $1 billion from FEMA. The influx of fentanyl into the U.S. has been halved. Vice President Kamala Harris’ interview with 60 Minutes could be considered a “major Campaign Finance Violation.”
These instances represent just a few ways that the two leading presidential campaigns have distorted the truth this year, as reported by PolitiFact, the renowned bipartisan fact-checking organization founded by journalist Bill Adair in 2007. The platform assesses the truthfulness of statements on a scale ranging from “pants on fire” to “true” — with both of Trump’s statements categorized as “pants on fire,” while Harris’ claim is deemed simply “false.” But does it seem like people still care?
In a conversation with PMG Magazine, Adair argued that fact-checking remains significant and can influence discussions, even amidst widespread disinformation and partisanship.
Though he acknowledges that Trump is unlikely to alter his behavior in response to fact-checks, he believes others may be motivated to be more truthful.
“Do I think that there are many politicians in the United States of both parties who, if journalists are holding them accountable, it will make them less likely to lie? Yes.”
This interview has been condensed for clarity and length.
What is the significance of fact-checking?
During a time of extreme polarization, where political news is often consumed through biased lenses, fact-checking still plays a crucial role. It sets a foundational baseline of facts, which is essential for genuine discussions surrounding policy. Fact-checking delivers the objective truth necessary for constructive dialogue about politics.
There seems to be an increase in both fact-checking and political dishonesty. Can you discuss how these phenomena have grown concurrently?
The first significant wave of fact-checking emerged in the early 1990s as a response to the 1988 campaign. This was followed by another wave with the establishment of factcheck.org in 2003, and later PolitiFact and The Washington Post's fact-checker in 2007. As fact-checking became more prevalent, with a wider public mentioning it, the rise of partisan media around 2010 led to echo chambers that undermined the effectiveness of fact-checking. Today, we need to rethink our strategies for disseminating fact-checks, encourage the establishment of more conservative fact-checking platforms, and promote state-level fact-checkers who can focus on congressional delegations, state legislators, and governors. This monitoring acts like a state trooper with a radar gun — if politicians know they’re being held accountable, they are less inclined to mislead.
Expanding on that radar gun analogy, many politicians seem to ignore it altogether. Consider former President Donald Trump.
Trump has consistently been an extreme case in terms of fact-checking. He holds the record for the most documented lies and continues to fabricate claims daily. While Trump is unlikely to modify his approach due to fact-checking, many politicians from both parties are influenced by accountability, which can deter dishonesty.
Why do conservatives perceive disinformation reporters and fact-checking initiatives as partisan?
This perception aligns with a long-standing conservative narrative that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, making it easy to dismiss liberal fact-checkers. Disparagement and ridicule of fact-checking are prevalent in conservative media, creating a constant stream of skepticism for conservative audiences.
What limitations does fact-checking have?
Fact-checking serves as a tool for informed decision-making. It is a unique form of journalism where a reporter investigates claims comprehensively and concludes their accuracy. However, it is ultimately still journalism. It’s worth noting that platforms like Facebook have utilized third-party fact-checking to flag false claims, which influences how that information circulates.
Some argue that fact-checking could infringe on free speech or be used to restrict it. How do you respond to that concern?
I recognize the importance of safeguarding free speech, making this a nuanced issue. However, the rapid dissemination of disinformation on digital platforms necessitates efforts to mitigate its spread. We can strike a balance between informing the public and curbing misinformation without unduly restricting free speech.
You describe fact-checking as a distinct journalistic approach that draws direct conclusions about claims. Should the public see more of these conclusions in all journalism?
We’re beginning to see increased instances of embedded fact-checking, where reporters call out inaccuracies directly within their reports. For example, a journalist might note, “Trump made the unfounded claim that immigrants are eating dogs in Springfield.” It is crucial that news and political reporters fulfill the responsibility of clarifying what is true and what isn’t, especially given that expecting the public to seek out their own verification has proven ineffective.
Have news organizations improved or declined in this regard?
Overall, there’s been improvement as more embedded fact-checking is reported now than in the past. However, considering the volume of claims made daily, it’s unrealistic for any organization to verify all. The focus should be on addressing significant claims that influence political discourse, which can be a challenge amid limited resources and a tumultuous media climate.
Has the cost of lying for politicians changed in the past two decades? Is there a different calculation regarding the potential repercussions of lying?
Absolutely; lying once had more significant consequences than it does today. In the era of shared media experiences, deceit carried more weight. Currently, the rise of targeted messaging and partisan media allows for dishonesty with fewer ramifications. Politicians may think, “I can lie and gain more than I lose.”
This interview originally appeared in PMG Nightly.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
These instances represent just a few ways that the two leading presidential campaigns have distorted the truth this year, as reported by PolitiFact, the renowned bipartisan fact-checking organization founded by journalist Bill Adair in 2007. The platform assesses the truthfulness of statements on a scale ranging from “pants on fire” to “true” — with both of Trump’s statements categorized as “pants on fire,” while Harris’ claim is deemed simply “false.” But does it seem like people still care?
In a conversation with PMG Magazine, Adair argued that fact-checking remains significant and can influence discussions, even amidst widespread disinformation and partisanship.
Though he acknowledges that Trump is unlikely to alter his behavior in response to fact-checks, he believes others may be motivated to be more truthful.
“Do I think that there are many politicians in the United States of both parties who, if journalists are holding them accountable, it will make them less likely to lie? Yes.”
This interview has been condensed for clarity and length.
What is the significance of fact-checking?
During a time of extreme polarization, where political news is often consumed through biased lenses, fact-checking still plays a crucial role. It sets a foundational baseline of facts, which is essential for genuine discussions surrounding policy. Fact-checking delivers the objective truth necessary for constructive dialogue about politics.
There seems to be an increase in both fact-checking and political dishonesty. Can you discuss how these phenomena have grown concurrently?
The first significant wave of fact-checking emerged in the early 1990s as a response to the 1988 campaign. This was followed by another wave with the establishment of factcheck.org in 2003, and later PolitiFact and The Washington Post's fact-checker in 2007. As fact-checking became more prevalent, with a wider public mentioning it, the rise of partisan media around 2010 led to echo chambers that undermined the effectiveness of fact-checking. Today, we need to rethink our strategies for disseminating fact-checks, encourage the establishment of more conservative fact-checking platforms, and promote state-level fact-checkers who can focus on congressional delegations, state legislators, and governors. This monitoring acts like a state trooper with a radar gun — if politicians know they’re being held accountable, they are less inclined to mislead.
Expanding on that radar gun analogy, many politicians seem to ignore it altogether. Consider former President Donald Trump.
Trump has consistently been an extreme case in terms of fact-checking. He holds the record for the most documented lies and continues to fabricate claims daily. While Trump is unlikely to modify his approach due to fact-checking, many politicians from both parties are influenced by accountability, which can deter dishonesty.
Why do conservatives perceive disinformation reporters and fact-checking initiatives as partisan?
This perception aligns with a long-standing conservative narrative that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, making it easy to dismiss liberal fact-checkers. Disparagement and ridicule of fact-checking are prevalent in conservative media, creating a constant stream of skepticism for conservative audiences.
What limitations does fact-checking have?
Fact-checking serves as a tool for informed decision-making. It is a unique form of journalism where a reporter investigates claims comprehensively and concludes their accuracy. However, it is ultimately still journalism. It’s worth noting that platforms like Facebook have utilized third-party fact-checking to flag false claims, which influences how that information circulates.
Some argue that fact-checking could infringe on free speech or be used to restrict it. How do you respond to that concern?
I recognize the importance of safeguarding free speech, making this a nuanced issue. However, the rapid dissemination of disinformation on digital platforms necessitates efforts to mitigate its spread. We can strike a balance between informing the public and curbing misinformation without unduly restricting free speech.
You describe fact-checking as a distinct journalistic approach that draws direct conclusions about claims. Should the public see more of these conclusions in all journalism?
We’re beginning to see increased instances of embedded fact-checking, where reporters call out inaccuracies directly within their reports. For example, a journalist might note, “Trump made the unfounded claim that immigrants are eating dogs in Springfield.” It is crucial that news and political reporters fulfill the responsibility of clarifying what is true and what isn’t, especially given that expecting the public to seek out their own verification has proven ineffective.
Have news organizations improved or declined in this regard?
Overall, there’s been improvement as more embedded fact-checking is reported now than in the past. However, considering the volume of claims made daily, it’s unrealistic for any organization to verify all. The focus should be on addressing significant claims that influence political discourse, which can be a challenge amid limited resources and a tumultuous media climate.
Has the cost of lying for politicians changed in the past two decades? Is there a different calculation regarding the potential repercussions of lying?
Absolutely; lying once had more significant consequences than it does today. In the era of shared media experiences, deceit carried more weight. Currently, the rise of targeted messaging and partisan media allows for dishonesty with fewer ramifications. Politicians may think, “I can lie and gain more than I lose.”
This interview originally appeared in PMG Nightly.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
