Bottom line: will your paper fact check equally the left and the right?
Getting to be so many "fact checkers" that sometimes the "fact checkers" have contradictions.
When will a fact checking site which evaluates the discrepancies of the fact checkers come into existence?
I'm looking for a fact checking site which doesn't provide a spin... otherwise the fact checking site has limited credibility.
When will a fact checking site which evaluates the discrepancies of the fact checkers come into existence?
I'm looking for a fact checking site which doesn't provide a spin... otherwise the fact checking site has limited credibility.
1
Where are these pieces she's been "churning out"? I haven't seen one yet.
1
There is a lot more to fact checking than a cub reporter being given the task of "fact checking" items in the news.
I know this because my older brother is about to commence his 41st year in editorial at the Baltimore Sun, mostly as a copy editor. Copy Editors are the first bastion of fact checking. My brother's remarkable recall and extraordinary reading in both history and literature have saved the blushes of many reporters over the years. Even a pause, "this doesn't sound right," can be enough to send a reporter back to sources, or an editor into research to ...check the facts.
The idea that the Times didn't fact check until Qiu was hired is laughable on its face.
But a warning is in order. Spayd's February column about "The Future of Editing" at the Times bodes badly for fact checking at the Times. Fewer layers of editing, fewer eyes on stories? Well that means that more mistakes will pass into publication unmolested. The Times obtusely sees editing as a cost without concomitant revenue. However, editing is quality control that helps the Times from wantonly destroying what remains of its reputation. On a balance sheet, that is a revenue line known as "good will." Without quality control, the reputation is subject to legitimate question.
I know this because my older brother is about to commence his 41st year in editorial at the Baltimore Sun, mostly as a copy editor. Copy Editors are the first bastion of fact checking. My brother's remarkable recall and extraordinary reading in both history and literature have saved the blushes of many reporters over the years. Even a pause, "this doesn't sound right," can be enough to send a reporter back to sources, or an editor into research to ...check the facts.
The idea that the Times didn't fact check until Qiu was hired is laughable on its face.
But a warning is in order. Spayd's February column about "The Future of Editing" at the Times bodes badly for fact checking at the Times. Fewer layers of editing, fewer eyes on stories? Well that means that more mistakes will pass into publication unmolested. The Times obtusely sees editing as a cost without concomitant revenue. However, editing is quality control that helps the Times from wantonly destroying what remains of its reputation. On a balance sheet, that is a revenue line known as "good will." Without quality control, the reputation is subject to legitimate question.
4
Paul:
Your point that "editing is quality control" is on target.
With respect to copy editing, there is also the matter of "quality style", which both your brother's paper and The Times has replaced by "pc-ism".
For example, for the past 20 years or so we see too much lowercasing nonsense, such as "the president [of the United States]".
(The Times never gave its readers an explanation for the change; what's the situation with the Sun, which is a paper I look at online occasionally because it not unexpectedly covers a sport that The Times apparently covers twice a year, which this year will be in it on May 28 and on May 30?)
Also, since your brought up the issue of "a pause" (although in a different sense), you probably heard of the expression "a comma is a pause that refreshes". Again, it does not seem The Times or the Sun believes in such, which is not the case with copy editors in the world of book publishing, thank goodness! (Of course I'm focusing here more on using a comma for clarity.)
Your point that "editing is quality control" is on target.
With respect to copy editing, there is also the matter of "quality style", which both your brother's paper and The Times has replaced by "pc-ism".
For example, for the past 20 years or so we see too much lowercasing nonsense, such as "the president [of the United States]".
(The Times never gave its readers an explanation for the change; what's the situation with the Sun, which is a paper I look at online occasionally because it not unexpectedly covers a sport that The Times apparently covers twice a year, which this year will be in it on May 28 and on May 30?)
Also, since your brought up the issue of "a pause" (although in a different sense), you probably heard of the expression "a comma is a pause that refreshes". Again, it does not seem The Times or the Sun believes in such, which is not the case with copy editors in the world of book publishing, thank goodness! (Of course I'm focusing here more on using a comma for clarity.)
For lacrosse coverage, also try Newsday, but it is often hopelessly LI provincial. But you can guarantee that they will cover the NCAA Quarters at Hofstra.
Copy editors don't have a lot of autonomy over the style book, but they can, and should hold factually questionable articles. The argument over "pc-ism" is one that is fought out over my beloved brother's pay grade, by people working without Newspaper Guild representation.
As for the Oxford comma, I believe in it, though for reasons that are unclear, it is anathema at the Times.
Copy editors don't have a lot of autonomy over the style book, but they can, and should hold factually questionable articles. The argument over "pc-ism" is one that is fought out over my beloved brother's pay grade, by people working without Newspaper Guild representation.
As for the Oxford comma, I believe in it, though for reasons that are unclear, it is anathema at the Times.
2
I think one reason the typical newspaper does not use the last-serial comma (a.k.a Oxford comma) is because newspapers are more concerned with the spoken word than books. In other words, when a good speaker says, say, "A, B, and C" (where A, B, and C could be single or multiple words), he/she frequently speeds up a bit, and so the time spent between saying A and B is more than that between B and C (even if the difference is by just a few milliseconds), and so we have "A, B and C" instead.
Wrt lacrosse at Hofstra, the Hofstra lax team surely made me look like a fool since I suggested in response to a PE column not long ago that The Times should send someone out there to write a story on the then 10-0 Hofstra team, which in the next game blew a big lead against a mediocre team (at Hofstra yet!) and then lost two of its last three games and thus will not be playing at its home at Hofstra in the Quarterfinals come Saturday.
[I would not be surprised if Newsday doesn't cover the two QF games, not only because the Hofstra team won't be playing but because the NCAA, for whatever reason, put the Syracuse game elsewhere. (Syracuse is always a big drawing team at Hofstra., and so are a team LI lax fans who read Newsday would like to read about in Newsday.)]
Wrt lacrosse at Hofstra, the Hofstra lax team surely made me look like a fool since I suggested in response to a PE column not long ago that The Times should send someone out there to write a story on the then 10-0 Hofstra team, which in the next game blew a big lead against a mediocre team (at Hofstra yet!) and then lost two of its last three games and thus will not be playing at its home at Hofstra in the Quarterfinals come Saturday.
[I would not be surprised if Newsday doesn't cover the two QF games, not only because the Hofstra team won't be playing but because the NCAA, for whatever reason, put the Syracuse game elsewhere. (Syracuse is always a big drawing team at Hofstra., and so are a team LI lax fans who read Newsday would like to read about in Newsday.)]
Could the Times please fact-check the article about Comey asking for additional funds for the Russia investigation? McCabe just said the opposite in his hearing.
2
Can the NYT please fact-check whether Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit?
When asked by Sinclair Broadcast Group's Michelle Macaluso about reports that claim otherwise, Rosenstein stated "No, I'm not quitting."
Macaluso: Did you threaten to quit?
Rosenstein: No.
https://twitter.com/LizMcKernan/status/862720961870778368
When asked by Sinclair Broadcast Group's Michelle Macaluso about reports that claim otherwise, Rosenstein stated "No, I'm not quitting."
Macaluso: Did you threaten to quit?
Rosenstein: No.
https://twitter.com/LizMcKernan/status/862720961870778368
1
So, here the Times goes again. Rabid dog journalists chasing after any possible anti-Trump story. Two stories (home page -- supposedly "objective" news) about the Comey firing. First -- Comey asked for more resources shortly before he was fired. The "journalists" cite 4 congress people -- but name only 1 -- Durbin, a democrat from Illinois. How credible is that?
The writers don't say how much additional resources were asked for or for what exactly. The justice dept denies Comey asked for more resources -- yet that is mentioned in passing six paras down.
Then a second article titled "Inside the FBI Stunned Agents Wonder about the Future of Russia Inquiry," which states without qualification or sources that morale is down at the agency over the Comey firing.
Really?
Did these muckraking scribes conduct an attitude survey of the entire FBI -- even a random sample? Did they name any sources from inside the FBI? Did they say how many agents they spoke? Did they say exactly what the concerns were about the Russia inquiry? Of course not.
The story opens with the statement (unsubstantiated) that morale dropped when Comey reopened the investigation in HRC's server issue in October. Really -- based on what evidence? Another attitude survey (oh I'm sorry, I imagine the Times would prefer a "climate" survey)?
I won't even go into the factless speculations and hysteria in the EB's editorial today or comrade Leonhardt's op-ed assertion that Trump is lying.
The writers don't say how much additional resources were asked for or for what exactly. The justice dept denies Comey asked for more resources -- yet that is mentioned in passing six paras down.
Then a second article titled "Inside the FBI Stunned Agents Wonder about the Future of Russia Inquiry," which states without qualification or sources that morale is down at the agency over the Comey firing.
Really?
Did these muckraking scribes conduct an attitude survey of the entire FBI -- even a random sample? Did they name any sources from inside the FBI? Did they say how many agents they spoke? Did they say exactly what the concerns were about the Russia inquiry? Of course not.
The story opens with the statement (unsubstantiated) that morale dropped when Comey reopened the investigation in HRC's server issue in October. Really -- based on what evidence? Another attitude survey (oh I'm sorry, I imagine the Times would prefer a "climate" survey)?
I won't even go into the factless speculations and hysteria in the EB's editorial today or comrade Leonhardt's op-ed assertion that Trump is lying.
2
Just checked the WaPo fact checker -- it gave 2 pinnochios for the lie about the Benghazi attack being a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim film. TWO? Seriously?
Fact checking of politicians is influenced by the politics of the fact checkers. Say that 2 or 3 times fast. So let's say the Repubs say Obamacare is failing. That may or may not be true, but it is certainly an assertion that can only be proven if Obamacare fails. If the Repubs say the Iran deal was one of the worst ever -- is that true or false? If the dems say that Trump should be impeached for firing Comey -- can that be fact checked?
A lot of political assertions are matters of opinion or a broad mix of facts, opinion and conjecture. What if a dem senator says climate change is the biggest existential threat we face? Whether you consider that a true statement or not depends on not only whether you believe CC orthodoxy but also on how you rank various threats.
Or let's say a dem states that firing Comey was done to stifle the investigation into the (remote) possibility of Trump-Russian collusion, that he shouldn't have been fired. How would you fact check that? You could certainly find lots of dem pols who publicly excoriated Comey post HRC's failed coronation -- so what do you do there?
It's not a bad idea, but let's not pretend that fact checkers are completely objective. But it would be a good idea to fact should the ed and op-ed writers at the Times. And comments.
Fact checking of politicians is influenced by the politics of the fact checkers. Say that 2 or 3 times fast. So let's say the Repubs say Obamacare is failing. That may or may not be true, but it is certainly an assertion that can only be proven if Obamacare fails. If the Repubs say the Iran deal was one of the worst ever -- is that true or false? If the dems say that Trump should be impeached for firing Comey -- can that be fact checked?
A lot of political assertions are matters of opinion or a broad mix of facts, opinion and conjecture. What if a dem senator says climate change is the biggest existential threat we face? Whether you consider that a true statement or not depends on not only whether you believe CC orthodoxy but also on how you rank various threats.
Or let's say a dem states that firing Comey was done to stifle the investigation into the (remote) possibility of Trump-Russian collusion, that he shouldn't have been fired. How would you fact check that? You could certainly find lots of dem pols who publicly excoriated Comey post HRC's failed coronation -- so what do you do there?
It's not a bad idea, but let's not pretend that fact checkers are completely objective. But it would be a good idea to fact should the ed and op-ed writers at the Times. And comments.
2
As far as the Wapo and HRC/Benghazi ... at least provide the link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillar...
Part of the problem here is that most claims against her are from members of the families of victims, and not recorded.
As to the rest of it, sure, there are lots of suppositional statements that get made, that cannot be checked. These need to be seen for what they are: pure opinion, it's a deceit however to present them as though they are "fact."
You do bring up the problem of people making hyperbolic claims or comparisons. Surely the Iran deal is not "one of the worst ever' ... see here for that one
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/25/the-5-worst-treaties-the-united-stat...
As to whether "climate change is the biggest existential threat we face" ... on one level your points are correct, and anytime one says "the greatest" that's a very high bar to climb. But this does not automatically produce the conclusion it is minor.
The point is to avoid hyperbolic excess. What we have on "both sides" is too much use of the debating tactic of picking out the truly wackiest and dumbest hyperbolic claims made by opponents, and then straw-manning those with the pretension that they are the only arguments.
That being said, on climate/CO2 issues, there is no skeptical SCIENTIFIC argument being made anymore, against the scientific consensus.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillar...
Part of the problem here is that most claims against her are from members of the families of victims, and not recorded.
As to the rest of it, sure, there are lots of suppositional statements that get made, that cannot be checked. These need to be seen for what they are: pure opinion, it's a deceit however to present them as though they are "fact."
You do bring up the problem of people making hyperbolic claims or comparisons. Surely the Iran deal is not "one of the worst ever' ... see here for that one
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/25/the-5-worst-treaties-the-united-stat...
As to whether "climate change is the biggest existential threat we face" ... on one level your points are correct, and anytime one says "the greatest" that's a very high bar to climb. But this does not automatically produce the conclusion it is minor.
The point is to avoid hyperbolic excess. What we have on "both sides" is too much use of the debating tactic of picking out the truly wackiest and dumbest hyperbolic claims made by opponents, and then straw-manning those with the pretension that they are the only arguments.
That being said, on climate/CO2 issues, there is no skeptical SCIENTIFIC argument being made anymore, against the scientific consensus.
1
"The remote possibility of Trump-Ru$$ian collusion?"
so you missed the Russians visiting the oval office with the US press excluded and the only photos from the admitted Russian press?
I don't think remote means what you think it does.
so you missed the Russians visiting the oval office with the US press excluded and the only photos from the admitted Russian press?
I don't think remote means what you think it does.
2
My opinion is that Trump's firing of Comey marks the "the beginning of the end" ... just as it did for Nixon. But there will be extraordinary drama, and I don't know what the outcome for our nation will be.
We need truthful, accurate reporting AND aggressive muckraking to serve the public interest. I wonder if our attenuated news media are up to the task.
We need truthful, accurate reporting AND aggressive muckraking to serve the public interest. I wonder if our attenuated news media are up to the task.
2
If you believe that, than you are also gullible to believe:
President Bill Clinton firing of FBI Director William Sessions was linked to Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster's death a day later.
Trump is using the media to create stories for them to obfuscate coverage of his actual actions. The media, understanding the limited mental facilities of their viewership/readership, jump for the low hanging fruit and pontificate as if they have discovered the apple from the Garden of Eden. (for non-Bible readers, apple represents knowledge)
Owners of the media cry all the way to the bank, as they sell more expensive advertisement.
President Bill Clinton firing of FBI Director William Sessions was linked to Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster's death a day later.
Trump is using the media to create stories for them to obfuscate coverage of his actual actions. The media, understanding the limited mental facilities of their viewership/readership, jump for the low hanging fruit and pontificate as if they have discovered the apple from the Garden of Eden. (for non-Bible readers, apple represents knowledge)
Owners of the media cry all the way to the bank, as they sell more expensive advertisement.
Will the NYT fact-check the 17 agencies' assessment fact?
From the the Clapper/Yates hearing on May 8, 2017 :
FRANKEN: We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17 of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that’s right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office…
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn’t go through that – that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came out.
From the the Clapper/Yates hearing on May 8, 2017 :
FRANKEN: We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17 of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that’s right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office…
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn’t go through that – that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came out.
1
In all seriousness, is it possible to petition for (considering all statements, tweets & behavior) to push for a competency hearing for Pres. Trump??? Any of us everyday people would be in treatment already with circumstances so dire all in all.
1
Are you qualified, Mr. Edward, to opine that President Trump is not mentally competent?
If not, I would suggest that it might be you that needs the competency hearing for making assertions that are beyond your qualifications.
You might also want to look at the libel laws and see what it is that you might find yourself defending.
If not, I would suggest that it might be you that needs the competency hearing for making assertions that are beyond your qualifications.
You might also want to look at the libel laws and see what it is that you might find yourself defending.
2
Everyone is qualified to have an opinion as to Trump's sanity and fitness, or anybody else's for that matter.
Trump is a public figure, many have called him unfit or mentally incompetent ... your bluster about libel is absurd.
You would do much better to point out the facts that there are only two ways to remove a president: impeachment and the 25th amendment part D. The latter has never occurred, and it seems unlikely to me for mental incapacity (as opposed to demonstrable physical incapacity) given that it requires the president's hand-picked cabinet to do so.
It is now history that Ronald Reagan was known to be failing with Alzheimers by the end of his presidency. James Baker was running the show, and there were quiet discussions as to how long this could go on, but they were able to carry it through to the end ... whether one deems that appropriate or not.
Trump is a public figure, many have called him unfit or mentally incompetent ... your bluster about libel is absurd.
You would do much better to point out the facts that there are only two ways to remove a president: impeachment and the 25th amendment part D. The latter has never occurred, and it seems unlikely to me for mental incapacity (as opposed to demonstrable physical incapacity) given that it requires the president's hand-picked cabinet to do so.
It is now history that Ronald Reagan was known to be failing with Alzheimers by the end of his presidency. James Baker was running the show, and there were quiet discussions as to how long this could go on, but they were able to carry it through to the end ... whether one deems that appropriate or not.
2
Will this new fact checker review errors of fact and disinformation from NYTimes house columnists? Bret Stephens followed up his inaugural meretricious column with another one today equally filled with cherry picked cites and deliberate misinterpretation on climate issues.. Perhaps it's time (again) to address the mote in your own eye...
http://www.samefacts.com/2017/05/energy-the-environment/the-wall-street-...
http://www.samefacts.com/2017/05/energy-the-environment/the-wall-street-...
6
No need. That's what the Public Editor is for. Oh wait...
2
Of course the fact-checker's age is relevant. The Times is now writing for Millennials, not the "I've been reading the Times since I was a child in the '40s" crowd. The posters never seem to understand this: it's NOT the "old gray lady" anymore, and fare thee well.
3
If you beat a dead horse long enough, Smiley, it comes alive again! Oh, really no. And your constant refrain that the New York Times is for 20 year olds and not for 35 year olds or 49 year olds or 60 year olds is just plain odd. And wrong. But don't let me stop you.
2
How about checking the facts of this quote from today's NYTimes:
"Mr. Flynn was forced out of that position after it was revealed that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, amid a continuing investigation into connections between the Russian government and the Trump campaign."
Oh, yes, that was the claim made by the WH spin machine, fired because he lied to the VP.! Maybe what is needed are credibility checks. This spinning has been reported as fact over and over again in this paper. The statement fails the basic smell test. Repetition does not make it true.
Now we learn that Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn. Maybe we will some day learn Flynn he was fired. It won't be because of lying to Pence.
"Mr. Flynn was forced out of that position after it was revealed that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, amid a continuing investigation into connections between the Russian government and the Trump campaign."
Oh, yes, that was the claim made by the WH spin machine, fired because he lied to the VP.! Maybe what is needed are credibility checks. This spinning has been reported as fact over and over again in this paper. The statement fails the basic smell test. Repetition does not make it true.
Now we learn that Obama warned Trump against hiring Flynn. Maybe we will some day learn Flynn he was fired. It won't be because of lying to Pence.
5
Does Boeing have a physics-checker? I would think not. I would imagine that everything they do is fundamentally based on sound physics and engineering, otherwise, their products won't fly.
The NY Times however...
The NY Times however...
4
AG: "Does Boeing have a physics-checker?"
Boeing has test pilots and an extensive flight testing process:
"Boeing’s new 787 flew for the first time last month, and flight testing is under way on the first two planes."
Plane Tests on Track, Boeing Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JAN. 27, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/business/28boeing.html
Google "boeing flight testing" for more.
Boeing has test pilots and an extensive flight testing process:
"Boeing’s new 787 flew for the first time last month, and flight testing is under way on the first two planes."
Plane Tests on Track, Boeing Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JAN. 27, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/business/28boeing.html
Google "boeing flight testing" for more.
Test flying planes is not equal to testing Bernoulli's equation. Tell us how, in your description, it might be.
1
Paul: "Test flying planes is not equal to testing Bernoulli's equation."
Google "pitot tube" and then read:
Airbus Advises Airlines to Replace Speed Sensors
By NICOLA CLARK
JULY 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/world/europe/01crash.html
Google "pitot tube" and then read:
Airbus Advises Airlines to Replace Speed Sensors
By NICOLA CLARK
JULY 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/world/europe/01crash.html
So does the Times think that hiring a fact checker, no matter how talented and diligent, provides enough of a fig leaf for the scandalous hiring and promotion of a professional dissembler and distorter like Bret Stephens?
I was disappointed to learn that the Times would hire Stephens in order to offer opinions that are appealing to a broader audience (aka "pandering"), and stunned to get a notification on my phone proudly announcing his first screed.
Maybe we'll see Kellyanne Conway alternating days with Maureen Dowd on the Op-Ed page soon.
I was disappointed to learn that the Times would hire Stephens in order to offer opinions that are appealing to a broader audience (aka "pandering"), and stunned to get a notification on my phone proudly announcing his first screed.
Maybe we'll see Kellyanne Conway alternating days with Maureen Dowd on the Op-Ed page soon.
13
The obvious question is, who's going to fact-check 24 year-old Linda Qui? Here's one publication which did:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-new-york-times-dangerous-and-misleading-tr...
https://thinkprogress.org/the-new-york-times-dangerous-and-misleading-tr...
4
Interesting to discover that the NY Times hasn't already been doing this. In this age of fake and alternative facts, as well as postings that aren't facts, so necessary. Seems like a lot for just one person - hoping you enlarge soon. In the meantime, congratulations on at least starting to do this.
1
I completely agree with a previous comment regarding fact checkers. The NYT would be smart to invest in research librarians, people with an MLS, trained to research. These professionals are dedicated to finding the FACTS.
2
I've read that no one who doesn't believe the source believes its fact checkers. If that's true is it doubling down on a losing proposition for the NYTimes to invest in fact-checkers?
Why didn't Liz Spayd get into this briar patch while criticizing the Times?
Why didn't Liz Spayd get into this briar patch while criticizing the Times?
2
I think I made a double double negative mistake. Please do forgive.
The obvious practical reason for fact checking at the New York Times is to catch errors or falsehoods before they get into print, and caught by others. Why is this hard to understand?
4
MA: "I've read that no one who doesn't believe the source believes its fact checkers."
Where did you read that?
Where did you read that?
1
Well put. One easy thing for the fact-checking department to do would be to compare the headlines with the actual content of the stories. For example, the "much less so" headline. People are often in a hurry -- headlines are no place for "rhetorical devices."
7
Why did you feel it necessary to list Linda Qiu's age?
If your implicit point was that she seems rather young for the job, why did you not make that point more explicitly?
Do you routinely list the ages of reporters you mention in your stories? If Qiu were 34 instead of 24, would you have listed her age? Why or why not?
If I saw this type of thing happening elsewhere in the paper, I might write to the public editor and ask her to get an explanation. Hmmmm.
If your implicit point was that she seems rather young for the job, why did you not make that point more explicitly?
Do you routinely list the ages of reporters you mention in your stories? If Qiu were 34 instead of 24, would you have listed her age? Why or why not?
If I saw this type of thing happening elsewhere in the paper, I might write to the public editor and ask her to get an explanation. Hmmmm.
10
fog: "Do you routinely list the ages of reporters you mention in your stories?"
Spayd is writing in "reporter mode", and reporters commonly report the age of subjects they are reporting on.
At the same time, that detail makes a rhetorical point -- the Times's only fact-checker is relatively inexperienced.
fog: "If I saw this type of thing happening elsewhere in the paper, I might write to the public editor and ask her to get an explanation."
Ages are reported in this article, so write away:
Life and Combat for Republicans at Berkeley
By THOMAS FULLER
MAY 8, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/republicans-at-berkeley-college.html
Spayd is writing in "reporter mode", and reporters commonly report the age of subjects they are reporting on.
At the same time, that detail makes a rhetorical point -- the Times's only fact-checker is relatively inexperienced.
fog: "If I saw this type of thing happening elsewhere in the paper, I might write to the public editor and ask her to get an explanation."
Ages are reported in this article, so write away:
Life and Combat for Republicans at Berkeley
By THOMAS FULLER
MAY 8, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/republicans-at-berkeley-college.html
If The Times wants to get into the fact check business, it needs to correct some of its own, starting with its Bob Herbert's error-filled "draft riots" column back in 1998. You're oh so sensitive when Trump makes an untoward remark about Mexicans or Muslims, The Times defames Irish immigrants and there's not a word of objection.
Actually, there was an outpouring of objection in Margaret Sullivan's tenure about the Irish immigrants killed in the balcony collapse.
And you want to start with a nineteen year old column? That's a long time to harbor a grudge, man.
And you want to start with a nineteen year old column? That's a long time to harbor a grudge, man.
2
I can't believe the Times is getting into fact-checking this late in the game. Only one fact-checker who also writes???? You need several who can fact-check many pieces, not just those about Trump. Anyway...keep it up!
3
The Times "fact" checking is ridiculously one sided. They were not very concerned with this when the most dishonest president in my lifetime, Obama was there.
3
As an ideal, fact checking is a noble service for readers. Unfortunately, so called fact checking is often used as a thinly veiled means of attacking one side. Indeed even the article focuses on fact checking of Trump. There are plenty of public misstatements of fact by all political leaders yet the accusations of falsehood seem narrowly directed. Worse, a statement is sometimes deemed false because it conflicts with an opinion, as if the opinion itself were a fact. The fact checking writers all too often confuse fact with opinion.
Fact checking by definition should be the most objective form of reporting. Instead, it often serves not to provide fact, but as a vehicle for a purely subjective and biased evaluation by the writer.
Fact checking by definition should be the most objective form of reporting. Instead, it often serves not to provide fact, but as a vehicle for a purely subjective and biased evaluation by the writer.
3
Exactly, in fact their bias is illustrated starkly by who they choose to fact check. The Times loves to "fact" check Trump but Democrats? Not so much.
GG: "The fact checking writers all too often confuse fact with opinion."
You didn't support that claim with any evidence. Please give an example of a fact check article that "confuse[s] fact with opinion".
You didn't support that claim with any evidence. Please give an example of a fact check article that "confuse[s] fact with opinion".
1
You see more coverage of Republican lies because Republicans lie more. What, did that possibility never occur to you?
1
The PE writes that Argentina has a fact-checking site but apparently is oblivious to the longtime misleading Argentina CPI.
Although The Times had at least one article on such, apparently not a word on Graciela Bevacqua, who ran the CPI and was one of Argentina's best-known statisticians before being fired by the previous administration for, in a nutshell, refusing to lower the CPI when such was not the case.
Furthermore, when the current administration took over in late 2015, Ms. Bevacqua was rehired but was unable to do statistically and time-wise what it wanted, and so she was fired once again!
Wrt The Times, perhaps Ms. Qiu should look into this, especially since the Bevacqua terminations were not covered explicitly by The Times.
For those interested in reading some more on this, try this link:
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10469668/Trump-vs-Statistics...
Although The Times had at least one article on such, apparently not a word on Graciela Bevacqua, who ran the CPI and was one of Argentina's best-known statisticians before being fired by the previous administration for, in a nutshell, refusing to lower the CPI when such was not the case.
Furthermore, when the current administration took over in late 2015, Ms. Bevacqua was rehired but was unable to do statistically and time-wise what it wanted, and so she was fired once again!
Wrt The Times, perhaps Ms. Qiu should look into this, especially since the Bevacqua terminations were not covered explicitly by The Times.
For those interested in reading some more on this, try this link:
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10469668/Trump-vs-Statistics...
3
DB: "The PE writes that Argentina has a fact-checking site but apparently is oblivious to the longtime misleading Argentina CPI."
Some people will use any excuse to complain about the Public Editor.
In fact, Paul Krugman reported on the discrepancy between Argentina's officially reported inflation estimates and independent estimates:
Inflation Truth, Really
by Paul Krugman
November 14, 2014
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/inflation-truth-really/
DB: "Wrt The Times, perhaps Ms. Qiu should look into this, especially since the Bevacqua terminations were not covered explicitly by The Times."
The "Bevacqua terminations" would be a great subject for the Times's international desk. You can email your story idea here:
[email protected]
Some people will use any excuse to complain about the Public Editor.
In fact, Paul Krugman reported on the discrepancy between Argentina's officially reported inflation estimates and independent estimates:
Inflation Truth, Really
by Paul Krugman
November 14, 2014
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/inflation-truth-really/
DB: "Wrt The Times, perhaps Ms. Qiu should look into this, especially since the Bevacqua terminations were not covered explicitly by The Times."
The "Bevacqua terminations" would be a great subject for the Times's international desk. You can email your story idea here:
[email protected]
GDL:
Thanks for the link to that column of Mr. Krugman. Nevertheless, as mentioned in my posting, nothing about the model of integrity under two very different administrations there and what happened to her. (Perhaps you should read the link I gave above.)
My posting was just an "extended" observation on something the PE had written and not an excuse to complain about her, which I rarely do. (Perhaps you should read other postings here and previously that complain ad nauseam about what she writes in her PE columns.)
Thanks for the link to that column of Mr. Krugman. Nevertheless, as mentioned in my posting, nothing about the model of integrity under two very different administrations there and what happened to her. (Perhaps you should read the link I gave above.)
My posting was just an "extended" observation on something the PE had written and not an excuse to complain about her, which I rarely do. (Perhaps you should read other postings here and previously that complain ad nauseam about what she writes in her PE columns.)
2
OK, riddle me this: the regularly scheduled, biweekly column from the Public Editor went up some 20 hours ago (it is now 12:45PM Sunday), and the only way to access it digitally is to click on the Public Editor's page? There is no link, zero, on either the Sunday Review or Opinion pages, and nothing on the front page either.
Should we draw the logical inference that the Times is marginalizing the position, and that Spayd is not particularly upset about it?
Should we draw the logical inference that the Times is marginalizing the position, and that Spayd is not particularly upset about it?
6
I've been reading the Public Editor for over a decade, both in print and on line. The column *frequently* does not show up on the digital front page for days, occasionally never. This is a column which "stands" for days, so it is not as crucial to squeeze out something else to get it in immediately. This is not new. You are seeing conspiracy where there is none, at least by historical standards.
2
Rick, every other week, up to now, there has been a direct link to the biweekly Public Editor Column on the Sunday Review page. In fact, it was the only article in the print version of the Sunday Review that did NOT have a link on the digital page. Coincidence?
And once Arthur Brisbane established the Public Editor's Journal, enthusiastically expanded by Margaret Sullivan, the latest entry always was entered on the ever shrinking blogroll "Latest from the Opinion Blogs." That link disappeared, coincidentally, I'm sure, early in Spayd's tenure.
And once Arthur Brisbane established the Public Editor's Journal, enthusiastically expanded by Margaret Sullivan, the latest entry always was entered on the ever shrinking blogroll "Latest from the Opinion Blogs." That link disappeared, coincidentally, I'm sure, early in Spayd's tenure.
2
I'm surprised and dismayed that the Times is both late and understaffed in the area of fact-checking and hope that they can soon match the Post, their only real rival (leaving out the paragraph about why the business daily is not) for best newspaper in the United States.
1
Has the NYTs lost its way???
On the 3rd column of Liz Spayd’s interesting column today (2017.05.07) on the NYTs and the “Fact-Check Biz” she says, “But culturally, editors were slow to recognize that readers wanted someone to pierces the political rhetoric of the day and dissect the provenance of claims.” Well, “duh”.
As opposed to what? As opposed to publishing the zillionth story about the French election that contains 1-2 paragraphs of new “not-news” (e.g., “X says his emails have been hacked, but nothing seems to have been released yet.”) and a half page rehashing stories and backgrounds about that election, Le Pen’s father, Macron’s wife, implications of either party’s winning the election for the future of the European Union, etc).
The word “News” implies something “new”. The NYTs would be better saving its ink and its reporters time for fact checking what needs to be fact checked. Providing the people with the truth would seem to be a higher calling and truer to the definition of “news” than at least 50% of all currently published “News Stories.”
On the 3rd column of Liz Spayd’s interesting column today (2017.05.07) on the NYTs and the “Fact-Check Biz” she says, “But culturally, editors were slow to recognize that readers wanted someone to pierces the political rhetoric of the day and dissect the provenance of claims.” Well, “duh”.
As opposed to what? As opposed to publishing the zillionth story about the French election that contains 1-2 paragraphs of new “not-news” (e.g., “X says his emails have been hacked, but nothing seems to have been released yet.”) and a half page rehashing stories and backgrounds about that election, Le Pen’s father, Macron’s wife, implications of either party’s winning the election for the future of the European Union, etc).
The word “News” implies something “new”. The NYTs would be better saving its ink and its reporters time for fact checking what needs to be fact checked. Providing the people with the truth would seem to be a higher calling and truer to the definition of “news” than at least 50% of all currently published “News Stories.”
3
I'm old enough to remember when the NYT had a research library staffed by special librarians (trained researchers employed by companies, law-firms, non-profits, etc.) In the publishing world, many special libraries were eliminated to save money. Odd how the article skirts over this topic.
7
Welcome aboard Linda Qiu and thank you NY Times for expanding your Fact Checking resources and also your plan to put this area of reporting on a Fast Find section of your website.
Readers need to know the truth and only the reporting of proven facts defines the truth. I automatically believe what someone tells me unless it is proven to be a lie or my own knowledge base contradicts what has been said. I am sure a large number of readers fall into this category. Chronic liars love the gullible or basically honest.
It is crucial to know the truth or lie within a statement that is coming from a governing authority because decision-making becomes a factor, but additionally, skewed facts and idiotic statements that get believed produce ignorance and ignorance can go viral.
In his case, I operate with the standard that every Trump utterance is a lie unless proven otherwise. Pathological liars are unable to recognize truths and facts no matter how many times they are presented to them. He is their poster boy.
Thank you fact checkers everywhere for your hard work and diligence in keeping America informed and intelligent.
Readers need to know the truth and only the reporting of proven facts defines the truth. I automatically believe what someone tells me unless it is proven to be a lie or my own knowledge base contradicts what has been said. I am sure a large number of readers fall into this category. Chronic liars love the gullible or basically honest.
It is crucial to know the truth or lie within a statement that is coming from a governing authority because decision-making becomes a factor, but additionally, skewed facts and idiotic statements that get believed produce ignorance and ignorance can go viral.
In his case, I operate with the standard that every Trump utterance is a lie unless proven otherwise. Pathological liars are unable to recognize truths and facts no matter how many times they are presented to them. He is their poster boy.
Thank you fact checkers everywhere for your hard work and diligence in keeping America informed and intelligent.
7
It's about time that the NY Times does this. Please don't bury it too deep in the pages and hire more fact checkers. The lies and misinformation spewing from our politician's mouths are too overwhelming for one person to handle.
3
You know, a couple of your predecessors-unlike you-have actually objected when your op ed writers blatantly lied. Have you seen the light?
15
The unit of the "Pinocchio" is droll, and "pants on fire" needs no explanation to any American kid who has heard "liar, liar, pants on fire!" (that is apparently of unknown origin, and no citations before about WW II) ... but one wonders what foreign readers make of it?
In the range of lying it is important to understand that there are various classes of lies that should be acknowledged and distinguished:
"The Barnum" ... named after PT Barnum of course, his famous "This way to the Egress." A sucker proposition that is technically true, and so embarrassing to anyone who falls for it that they usually won't complain.
"The Limbaugh" -- a truculent lie pitched to the ignorant, often in the form of an aggressive question: "Explain to me how 0.04% can affect anything." (Hey Rush, you were an Oxycontin addict. Even as a habituated addict, an amount of Oxycodone equal to 0.04% of your body weight would have killed you.)
And then sadly there is "the Shibani:" named after Shibani Joshi, the FOX news "expert" who famously declared that "Germany gets more sun" (than the US). Shibanis are the new unit of amazing scientific/technical ignorance, masquerading as expertise.
In the range of lying it is important to understand that there are various classes of lies that should be acknowledged and distinguished:
"The Barnum" ... named after PT Barnum of course, his famous "This way to the Egress." A sucker proposition that is technically true, and so embarrassing to anyone who falls for it that they usually won't complain.
"The Limbaugh" -- a truculent lie pitched to the ignorant, often in the form of an aggressive question: "Explain to me how 0.04% can affect anything." (Hey Rush, you were an Oxycontin addict. Even as a habituated addict, an amount of Oxycodone equal to 0.04% of your body weight would have killed you.)
And then sadly there is "the Shibani:" named after Shibani Joshi, the FOX news "expert" who famously declared that "Germany gets more sun" (than the US). Shibanis are the new unit of amazing scientific/technical ignorance, masquerading as expertise.
6
Quote attributed by LH to Limbaugh: "Explain to me how 0.04% can affect anything."
You failed to say whether or not that is an authentic Limbaugh quote.
If it is, please cite a reliable source for it, such as a book or public statement by Limbaugh.
If not, try doing some actual research. Your library might have a book by Limbaugh.
You failed to say whether or not that is an authentic Limbaugh quote.
If it is, please cite a reliable source for it, such as a book or public statement by Limbaugh.
If not, try doing some actual research. Your library might have a book by Limbaugh.
LH: '... Shibani Joshi, the FOX news "expert" who famously declared that "Germany gets more sun" (than the US).'
Not to rain on your little parade of drollery, but Joshi published a correction:
'But I incorrectly stated that the chief difference between the U.S. and Germany’s success with solar installations had to do with climate differences on a "Fox and Friends" appearance on Feb. 7. In fact, the difference come down more to subsidies and political priorities and has nothing to with sunshine.'
Germany isn’t all that sunny and a case for a diversified energy world
By Shibani Joshi
February 08, 2013
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/08/germany-isnt-all-that-sunny-a...
Not to rain on your little parade of drollery, but Joshi published a correction:
'But I incorrectly stated that the chief difference between the U.S. and Germany’s success with solar installations had to do with climate differences on a "Fox and Friends" appearance on Feb. 7. In fact, the difference come down more to subsidies and political priorities and has nothing to with sunshine.'
Germany isn’t all that sunny and a case for a diversified energy world
By Shibani Joshi
February 08, 2013
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/08/germany-isnt-all-that-sunny-a...
I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for anything Joshi wrote here.
He made a claim about corruption, citing "Solyndra and many others," but somehow couldn't put a name on a single other one.
He used ad hominems to insult Obama.
While he correctly mentioned energy subsidies for every type going back over 100 years, he appallingly made no distinction about the propriety of giving away subsidies to mature, already profitable industries versus new, emerging technologies.
I have vacationed every year since 1998 in upper Vermont. I can personally testify to the extraordinary growth of solar power, including solar farms, in a place with a six month winter and a summer sometimes jokingly described as "July."
Joshi completely, but predictably, whiffs on the advances in solar technology, including clear overlays for windows into which devices can be directly plugged.
Corrections themselves can be problematic. Rushing to judgement and then having to correct is well worse than waiting a little and getting it right the first time of asking. Despite knowing Bret Stephens was a controversial hire, further knowing he would be under close scrutiny, despite the claim passed on from James Bennet thru Spayd that columnists are fact checked, the Times STILL found it necessary to append a correction to Stephens' first effort.
What, you endorse the Emily Litella-"Russian Jewelry" routine? "Oh, that's very different. (Smiles sweetly at camera) Never mind."
Google it if you are too young.
He made a claim about corruption, citing "Solyndra and many others," but somehow couldn't put a name on a single other one.
He used ad hominems to insult Obama.
While he correctly mentioned energy subsidies for every type going back over 100 years, he appallingly made no distinction about the propriety of giving away subsidies to mature, already profitable industries versus new, emerging technologies.
I have vacationed every year since 1998 in upper Vermont. I can personally testify to the extraordinary growth of solar power, including solar farms, in a place with a six month winter and a summer sometimes jokingly described as "July."
Joshi completely, but predictably, whiffs on the advances in solar technology, including clear overlays for windows into which devices can be directly plugged.
Corrections themselves can be problematic. Rushing to judgement and then having to correct is well worse than waiting a little and getting it right the first time of asking. Despite knowing Bret Stephens was a controversial hire, further knowing he would be under close scrutiny, despite the claim passed on from James Bennet thru Spayd that columnists are fact checked, the Times STILL found it necessary to append a correction to Stephens' first effort.
What, you endorse the Emily Litella-"Russian Jewelry" routine? "Oh, that's very different. (Smiles sweetly at camera) Never mind."
Google it if you are too young.
Ms. Spayd ... I am left amazed to find out that the Times did not have a fact-checking unit -- and what to make of Mr. Bennet's
"we expect our columnists to work with the same regard for fact and truth as the newsroom. We edit and fact-check columnists and ask them to provide sources for their facts."
That claim was met with justifiable incredulity from all sides -- and now you tell us baldly that the NY Times had no fact-checking unit? .
Again, Mr. Bennet ... let's see Mr. Stephens' list of sources he provided you for his second piece. And who did the fact-checking, and what did they report to you?
"we expect our columnists to work with the same regard for fact and truth as the newsroom. We edit and fact-check columnists and ask them to provide sources for their facts."
That claim was met with justifiable incredulity from all sides -- and now you tell us baldly that the NY Times had no fact-checking unit? .
Again, Mr. Bennet ... let's see Mr. Stephens' list of sources he provided you for his second piece. And who did the fact-checking, and what did they report to you?
10
LH: "... the Times did not have a fact-checking unit -- and what to make of Mr. Bennet's [statement] ..."
The PE and Bennet are referring to DIFFERENT fact-checking functions.
The PE says that fact-checkers "select significant political claims and set out to determine their veracity". Those fact-checkers are doing a type of news reporting.
The Times also does fact-checking on its own articles before publication. That fact-checking is part of a news production process that also includes line-editing, copy-editing, photo-editing, etc. Apparently, opinion pieces are supposed to go through a similar process.
There are numerous books on journalism and news production. Check your library.
See also:
"Deciding what's true: the rise of political fact-checking in American journalism" by Lucas Graves.
For the record, Bennet's statement is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/public-editor/friday-mailbag-a-column...
The PE and Bennet are referring to DIFFERENT fact-checking functions.
The PE says that fact-checkers "select significant political claims and set out to determine their veracity". Those fact-checkers are doing a type of news reporting.
The Times also does fact-checking on its own articles before publication. That fact-checking is part of a news production process that also includes line-editing, copy-editing, photo-editing, etc. Apparently, opinion pieces are supposed to go through a similar process.
There are numerous books on journalism and news production. Check your library.
See also:
"Deciding what's true: the rise of political fact-checking in American journalism" by Lucas Graves.
For the record, Bennet's statement is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/public-editor/friday-mailbag-a-column...
Yep, Bennet's statement is right there, without a scintilla of how, or by whom, such fact checking was effected. And, the proof of the pudding being in the eating, the effectiveness of Bennet's claim is revealed to be wanting, given that the very same editorial page (mis)management team found it necessary to append a correction for a claim that Bennet assured us was "fact checked."
Either Bennet was dishonest in his claim, or the fact checking was insufficient and/or incompetent, as overseen, directly or indirectly, by Bennet. I see no other inference that can be logically drawn. Which result do you think Bennet should admit to, @GDL?
Either Bennet was dishonest in his claim, or the fact checking was insufficient and/or incompetent, as overseen, directly or indirectly, by Bennet. I see no other inference that can be logically drawn. Which result do you think Bennet should admit to, @GDL?
2
Paul: "... the fact checking was insufficient ... as overseen, directly or indirectly, by Bennet."
That guess is plausible.
There is "an opening for an Editorial Assistant in the Editorial Department, supporting our columnists, Roger Cohen and Bret Stephens."
The job "entails research, fact-checking, social media and clerical duties."
One of the job functions is to:
"Verify and/or correct the accuracy of the information contained in draft columns and write summaries as necessary."
Editorial Jobs
Assistant to Roger Cohen and Bret Stephens
http://www.nytco.com/careers/editorial/assistant-to-roger-cohen-and-bret...
(NB: There is no date given for the job announcement.)
That guess is plausible.
There is "an opening for an Editorial Assistant in the Editorial Department, supporting our columnists, Roger Cohen and Bret Stephens."
The job "entails research, fact-checking, social media and clerical duties."
One of the job functions is to:
"Verify and/or correct the accuracy of the information contained in draft columns and write summaries as necessary."
Editorial Jobs
Assistant to Roger Cohen and Bret Stephens
http://www.nytco.com/careers/editorial/assistant-to-roger-cohen-and-bret...
(NB: There is no date given for the job announcement.)
I am looking forward to a fact checker on my primary source of news. Primary but not the last. I have a confidence in the NY Times that has always found itself growing. I like the different viewpoints about a subject and the range of subjects covered. The online edition keeps me informed here in Alabama in a way that was very difficult. Fortunately it coincided with my retirement and my daughters' maturing into even better informed persons than I am. I always point to my sources with the Times hold an obvious top place. Just to let you know it was Paul Krugman whose blog and articles got me here first. My youngest daughter subscribes for me and has for a number of years. It is truly the gift that keeps on giving.
6
It's pretty pathetic that the intellectually dishonest Krugman got you here. They could write a "fact" check column on his columns every time he writes one. That man is painfully fact challenged and dishonest. I notice though that Spayd made comments about Stephens recently, if so then she needs to comment about Krugman. Is she afraid of him?
PE: "They [readers] wanted blunt assertions of truth or fiction — and proof as to why ..."
That's an unrealistically high standard, because statements may be ambiguous, so their factuality depends on how they are interpreted.
In a Times fact check article on whether Trump "knew" Bannon before Trump hired him, the Times makes a simplistic interpretation of this statement attributed to Trump:
NY Post quote: "... I didn’t know Steve."
The Times attempts to show that is false by citing evidence that Trump had MET Bannon on previous occasions.
In the context of the full quote, it is clear that Trump means that he didn't know ENOUGH about Bannon before hiring him.
Trump Says He Didn’t Know Bannon Until Campaign, but They Met in 2011
By LINDA QIU
APRIL 12, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/trump-steven-bannon-fox-b...
That's an unrealistically high standard, because statements may be ambiguous, so their factuality depends on how they are interpreted.
In a Times fact check article on whether Trump "knew" Bannon before Trump hired him, the Times makes a simplistic interpretation of this statement attributed to Trump:
NY Post quote: "... I didn’t know Steve."
The Times attempts to show that is false by citing evidence that Trump had MET Bannon on previous occasions.
In the context of the full quote, it is clear that Trump means that he didn't know ENOUGH about Bannon before hiring him.
Trump Says He Didn’t Know Bannon Until Campaign, but They Met in 2011
By LINDA QIU
APRIL 12, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/trump-steven-bannon-fox-b...
1
PE: 'There’s little room for sloppiness if you’re calling yourself a “fact checker,” so the system is designed to avoid disasters.'
In a Times fact check article on whether women have to register for the draft, there is no mention of the Selective Service System. In contrast, the related Times article mentions "Selective Service" twice.
While that omission is not a "disaster", it does show that fact checkers may be blind to important details. In this case, the fact checker should have mentioned the Selective Service System and linked to the agency's web site in the online version of the article:
https://www.sss.gov/
Do Women Have to Register for the Draft? No. But Misinformation Spreads.
By LINDA QIU
APRIL 26, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/fact-check-women-register...
In a Times fact check article on whether women have to register for the draft, there is no mention of the Selective Service System. In contrast, the related Times article mentions "Selective Service" twice.
While that omission is not a "disaster", it does show that fact checkers may be blind to important details. In this case, the fact checker should have mentioned the Selective Service System and linked to the agency's web site in the online version of the article:
https://www.sss.gov/
Do Women Have to Register for the Draft? No. But Misinformation Spreads.
By LINDA QIU
APRIL 26, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/fact-check-women-register...
1
Meta moment in the Qiu piece linked here:
"Multiple studies have shown that most news consumers seldom read entire articles. For many, in this new and continuously expanding information landscape, a glance is enough to confirm existing biases and emotions."
Testing her own hypothesis, she left this for the penultimate paragraph of her article. How many who started the article reached that paragraph?
"Multiple studies have shown that most news consumers seldom read entire articles. For many, in this new and continuously expanding information landscape, a glance is enough to confirm existing biases and emotions."
Testing her own hypothesis, she left this for the penultimate paragraph of her article. How many who started the article reached that paragraph?
2
Paul: "How many who started the article reached that paragraph?"
Well, I didn't. All I did was a text search for "selective" to confirm that Qiu's article doesn't mention "selective service".
And that paragraph goes way beyond what a fact-checker should be doing. It shows why the Times needs a fact-checking editor.
Well, I didn't. All I did was a text search for "selective" to confirm that Qiu's article doesn't mention "selective service".
And that paragraph goes way beyond what a fact-checker should be doing. It shows why the Times needs a fact-checking editor.
Funny, I read the links you cite, and you don't?
1
Sounds like a useless hire, really. No one who is not part of the political opposition to our President will accept her results.
If you wanted to be taken seriously on this, you would have hired a Republican rather than a millennial twofer whose politics is a Google search away.
If you wanted to be taken seriously on this, you would have hired a Republican rather than a millennial twofer whose politics is a Google search away.
2
HT: "... whose politics is a Google search away."
What did you Google and what did you conclude?
What did you Google and what did you conclude?
2
Good news. Make it the best you can!
1
It’s good of course that the Times is building up its fact-checking. I see one potential aspect that could be a problem, at least for me, not for the usual Times readership.
Donald Trump has a disease of the mouth—there’s another name for it I won’t repeat—that has him blurting out on everything all the time. If I had a nickel for every time he says “great,” this is great, that is great, everything is great, at least if it comes from him, I could buy the New York Times from the Sulzbergers. I pay no attention to any utterance from Donald Trump.
The Times fact-checkers will not lack for material from Donald Trump. Indeed, they will be swamped with it. I hear and read in addition, however, numerous untruths, just plain lies, from the other side of the aisle. From, that is, the Democrats and the numerous others joining the Democrats in the “Resistance.” The Public Editor mentions Harry Reid before the Trump presidency and Maxine Waters now.
We will hear an awful lot from the Times fact-checkers on Donald Trump. I have no faith that we are going to hear very much, if at all, about the untruths of the Democrats and their fellow traveler political figures in the Resistance. The fact-checking will not be opinion. Formally. But, heavily weighted to check mostly and predominantly on Trump and check only minimally on the Democrats, it will emerge as just another avenue of the New York Times hard left stance, amounting actually to propaganda, on Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has a disease of the mouth—there’s another name for it I won’t repeat—that has him blurting out on everything all the time. If I had a nickel for every time he says “great,” this is great, that is great, everything is great, at least if it comes from him, I could buy the New York Times from the Sulzbergers. I pay no attention to any utterance from Donald Trump.
The Times fact-checkers will not lack for material from Donald Trump. Indeed, they will be swamped with it. I hear and read in addition, however, numerous untruths, just plain lies, from the other side of the aisle. From, that is, the Democrats and the numerous others joining the Democrats in the “Resistance.” The Public Editor mentions Harry Reid before the Trump presidency and Maxine Waters now.
We will hear an awful lot from the Times fact-checkers on Donald Trump. I have no faith that we are going to hear very much, if at all, about the untruths of the Democrats and their fellow traveler political figures in the Resistance. The fact-checking will not be opinion. Formally. But, heavily weighted to check mostly and predominantly on Trump and check only minimally on the Democrats, it will emerge as just another avenue of the New York Times hard left stance, amounting actually to propaganda, on Donald Trump.
How about putting your fact checker onto Brett Stephens?
10
No, how about on Krugman, Dowd, Blow, and the rest of the sorry lot they have for columnists.
But James Bennet (risibly) claimed he was fact checked. The question is, by whom?
2
Indeed Mr. Bennet claims that they always have ... with fact-checkers who did not exist?
Suppose Ms. Qiu is asked to verify the proposition "the sun rises (approximately) in the east, and sets (approximately) to the west." One might wonder what "level of certainty" the right wing would require for this assertion?
Plain observable facts like this seem to be "in doubt" today by those on the right. Bret Stephens has played the very last gasp of denialism -- the "you can doubt anything you want because science is never 100% certain about anything" ... this is the "it's only a flesh wound" moment for climate denialism, when it abandons all pretense of actually arguing the facts or putting forward a counter hypothesis.
Oh really? The sun will rise in the west tomorrow? Or everybody who has observed it rising in the east for millennia has been delusional?
Bret's blatant mistake was to actually claim to quote something from the IPCC -- and demonstrating a false quotation -- a 4th-grade failure.
Bret actually made a lot more lies and whoppers in his second piece that his first:
* multiple misstatements about the German Energiewende
* completely false claims about who promoted the biofuels tax rebates, when and why
But we haven't seen any correction from the New York Times about those, because it's more complicated than an obvious failure to quote properly.
Suppose Ms. Qiu is asked to verify the proposition "the sun rises (approximately) in the east, and sets (approximately) to the west." One might wonder what "level of certainty" the right wing would require for this assertion?
Plain observable facts like this seem to be "in doubt" today by those on the right. Bret Stephens has played the very last gasp of denialism -- the "you can doubt anything you want because science is never 100% certain about anything" ... this is the "it's only a flesh wound" moment for climate denialism, when it abandons all pretense of actually arguing the facts or putting forward a counter hypothesis.
Oh really? The sun will rise in the west tomorrow? Or everybody who has observed it rising in the east for millennia has been delusional?
Bret's blatant mistake was to actually claim to quote something from the IPCC -- and demonstrating a false quotation -- a 4th-grade failure.
Bret actually made a lot more lies and whoppers in his second piece that his first:
* multiple misstatements about the German Energiewende
* completely false claims about who promoted the biofuels tax rebates, when and why
But we haven't seen any correction from the New York Times about those, because it's more complicated than an obvious failure to quote properly.
3
PE: "When they do their job well, fact checkers produce passionless, straightforward assessments, with no evidence of ideological leaning."
Both PolitiFact and the Times are guilty of "ideological" interpretation of ambiguous evidence.
PolitiFact fails to say that the word "call" in Rep. Waters's statement, "I have not called for impeachment", is ambiguous. The word "call" in this context could mean "initiate impeachment proceedings in the House per the US Constitution". Indeed, PolitiFact never even mentions the US Constitution.
In one of the Times's fact checks on Trump, the Times fails to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Trump said the Times "changed" a headline between the print and the online versions of an article. The Times fails to say that it does not know for certain in what order Trump saw the two headlines. Instead, the Times laboriously reconstructs a timeline for the publication of the print and online versions to "prove" Trump is wrong.
In both examples, the fact checkers make an "ideological" interpretation of ambiguous evidence so as to "prove" their targets made a false statement.
Fact checking has become an ideology of its own.
Source:
Fact Check: Trump Misleads About The Times’s Reporting on Surveillance
By LINDA QIU
MARCH 23, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/politics/fact-check-trump-misleads...
BTW, that fact check article fails to supply an essential fact -- an image of the headline in the PRINT version.
Both PolitiFact and the Times are guilty of "ideological" interpretation of ambiguous evidence.
PolitiFact fails to say that the word "call" in Rep. Waters's statement, "I have not called for impeachment", is ambiguous. The word "call" in this context could mean "initiate impeachment proceedings in the House per the US Constitution". Indeed, PolitiFact never even mentions the US Constitution.
In one of the Times's fact checks on Trump, the Times fails to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Trump said the Times "changed" a headline between the print and the online versions of an article. The Times fails to say that it does not know for certain in what order Trump saw the two headlines. Instead, the Times laboriously reconstructs a timeline for the publication of the print and online versions to "prove" Trump is wrong.
In both examples, the fact checkers make an "ideological" interpretation of ambiguous evidence so as to "prove" their targets made a false statement.
Fact checking has become an ideology of its own.
Source:
Fact Check: Trump Misleads About The Times’s Reporting on Surveillance
By LINDA QIU
MARCH 23, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/politics/fact-check-trump-misleads...
BTW, that fact check article fails to supply an essential fact -- an image of the headline in the PRINT version.
1
With its surging stock price, soaring global subscriptions and know-it-all swagger, The New York Times has only one fact-checker -- one? In a 24/7 news cycle? So if she works, say, 40 hours a week, who covers the other 128? And, at the same time, isn't there less copy editing than ever?
The Times's latest ad campaign is "The Truth Is Hard to Find." And presumably before the vast volume of information that flows daily (just think of the Trump administration alone) can be considered truth, it needs to be verified, right? But with only one fact-checker, Mr. Baquet -- one? Really?
The Times's latest ad campaign is "The Truth Is Hard to Find." And presumably before the vast volume of information that flows daily (just think of the Trump administration alone) can be considered truth, it needs to be verified, right? But with only one fact-checker, Mr. Baquet -- one? Really?
7
I would hope, too, that fact checkers parse "that which is not said" into their process in order to spot half-truths. Also I hope they are encouraged to track down the big ones first. Over the last 50 years, we've been besieged by half-truths and been distracted by shiny objects while our voices and our freedoms have been compromised. Hopefully this new effort can help restore sanity.
3
I was born at night (3:58AM), just not last night.
So we are supposed to believe Carolyn Ryan, in charge of the worst political coverage in my memory, going back to the 1968 election, when she talks about fervor for fact checking?
Where was she when Michael S Schmidt & Matt Apuzzo used anonymous sources to claim a criminal referral about Hillary Clinton's e-mail server, a claim requiring correction?
Where was fact checking, even on the part of reporters, in the coverage of Trump, up until its "lie" moment?
And a reminder, in Spayd's own reporting from Feb. 4, we were told to expect fewer layers of editing, which, perforce, means less fact checking.
In her own writing about Bret Stephens, Spayd elicited this response to a reader query from Editorial Page Editor James Bennet: "We edit and fact-check columnists and ask them to provide sources for their facts." This he said in spite of the fact that Stephens was such a controversial hire that preliminary PR spin was attempted by Bennet himself, Spayd, in an egregious departure from what a Public Editor is supposed to do, and now seeming leader of the cadre of columnists, David Leonhardt, in his daily e-mail blast. Despite knowing Stephens was a controversial hire, likely to be closely scrutinized by many opposed to his hiring, & the claim that columnists are fact checked, that 1st column STILL required a correction.
A commenter, Lee Harrison, demanded fact checking from Stephens' 2d column. We await.
Fact checking? Not credible.
So we are supposed to believe Carolyn Ryan, in charge of the worst political coverage in my memory, going back to the 1968 election, when she talks about fervor for fact checking?
Where was she when Michael S Schmidt & Matt Apuzzo used anonymous sources to claim a criminal referral about Hillary Clinton's e-mail server, a claim requiring correction?
Where was fact checking, even on the part of reporters, in the coverage of Trump, up until its "lie" moment?
And a reminder, in Spayd's own reporting from Feb. 4, we were told to expect fewer layers of editing, which, perforce, means less fact checking.
In her own writing about Bret Stephens, Spayd elicited this response to a reader query from Editorial Page Editor James Bennet: "We edit and fact-check columnists and ask them to provide sources for their facts." This he said in spite of the fact that Stephens was such a controversial hire that preliminary PR spin was attempted by Bennet himself, Spayd, in an egregious departure from what a Public Editor is supposed to do, and now seeming leader of the cadre of columnists, David Leonhardt, in his daily e-mail blast. Despite knowing Stephens was a controversial hire, likely to be closely scrutinized by many opposed to his hiring, & the claim that columnists are fact checked, that 1st column STILL required a correction.
A commenter, Lee Harrison, demanded fact checking from Stephens' 2d column. We await.
Fact checking? Not credible.
9
Interesting...Very interesting...
I wonder if the New York Times would have fact-checked itself during the last election cycle.
They might have actually kept the Times from the self-inflicted wound that stamped their raucous support of all thing Democratic and stumbled upon the truth.
Nah...Never would have happened. Far too many employed by the Times drink the Aide from the Koolers.
I wonder if the New York Times would have fact-checked itself during the last election cycle.
They might have actually kept the Times from the self-inflicted wound that stamped their raucous support of all thing Democratic and stumbled upon the truth.
Nah...Never would have happened. Far too many employed by the Times drink the Aide from the Koolers.
3
PolitiFact is great.
Conway: "if we’re so concerned about the principles of American democracy, as so many chest beaters were this week, ask Hillary Clinton why she takes tens of dollars from countries that hate women, that disrespect women, that throw gays off of buildings?"
We found Conway is confusing a few points.
First, Clinton herself hasn’t taken donations from foreign countries, which is illegal for political candidates. The Clinton Foundation, however, has taken donations from countries that have poor records when it comes to their treatment of women and the LGBT community (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Oman).
Second, Conway’s use of the present tense implies the Clinton Foundation continues to accept these donations, while the latest gifts came in 2014.
And finally, same-sex relations in some of these countries is punishable by death, but they do not "throw gays off of buildings." That’s something done by ISIS, which is obviously not a Clinton Foundation donor.
Rating: Mostly False.
Who can disagree with Politifact?
Yes, Clinton hasn’t taken donations from foreign countries which oppress women and kill gays, the Clinton Foundation has.
Yes, when accused "you take donations from them", answer - no, last time it was two years ago.
Yes, those countries do not throw gays off of buildings - they execute gays in a different fashion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/23/kellyanne...
Conway: "if we’re so concerned about the principles of American democracy, as so many chest beaters were this week, ask Hillary Clinton why she takes tens of dollars from countries that hate women, that disrespect women, that throw gays off of buildings?"
We found Conway is confusing a few points.
First, Clinton herself hasn’t taken donations from foreign countries, which is illegal for political candidates. The Clinton Foundation, however, has taken donations from countries that have poor records when it comes to their treatment of women and the LGBT community (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Oman).
Second, Conway’s use of the present tense implies the Clinton Foundation continues to accept these donations, while the latest gifts came in 2014.
And finally, same-sex relations in some of these countries is punishable by death, but they do not "throw gays off of buildings." That’s something done by ISIS, which is obviously not a Clinton Foundation donor.
Rating: Mostly False.
Who can disagree with Politifact?
Yes, Clinton hasn’t taken donations from foreign countries which oppress women and kill gays, the Clinton Foundation has.
Yes, when accused "you take donations from them", answer - no, last time it was two years ago.
Yes, those countries do not throw gays off of buildings - they execute gays in a different fashion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/23/kellyanne...
2
Conway as quoted by PolitiFact: "... she takes tens of dollars ..."
PolitiFact didn't have the wits to fact check that quote. In fact, Conway said "tens of millions of dollars".
My evidence is the version of the quote at the top of PolitiFact's own article!
--
2017-05-09 01:40:30 UTC
PolitiFact didn't have the wits to fact check that quote. In fact, Conway said "tens of millions of dollars".
My evidence is the version of the quote at the top of PolitiFact's own article!
--
2017-05-09 01:40:30 UTC
PolitiFact: "As a terrorist group, they [ISIS] cannot and have not donated to the Clinton Foundation."
PolitiFact fails to cite a source supporting the latter claim. Presumably, ISIS could donate through a third party. Admittedly, that would be highly unlikely, given their anti-Western ideology, but the point is that PolitiFact is speculating instead of fact-checking.
PolitiFact fails to cite a source supporting the latter claim. Presumably, ISIS could donate through a third party. Admittedly, that would be highly unlikely, given their anti-Western ideology, but the point is that PolitiFact is speculating instead of fact-checking.
Well, well...so the erudite NYT isn't, after all, the nation's (and Australia's) "newspaper of record."
2
Once again, Liz Spayd proves that she is not the internal critic that she's supposed to be as The Times' public editor. Instead, she is a PR flak who simply hypes the latest initiatives, or in the case of Bret Stephens, the latest awful columnist hire, from Times management.
Shamelessly shilling for management: how long will this go on?
Shamelessly shilling for management: how long will this go on?
10