The problem with truth

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney, Australia

26 January 2012


Recently, the Public Editor of the New York Times caused a stir by asking whether the paper's journalists should be "truth vigilantes" — whether reporters should police facts within news reports, or merely relay events as they happened. James Fallows has the details here.

The reaction across the Internet was a deafening "duh." The public is desperate for someone to hold public figures to account.  

Politifact's Truth-O-Metere

That's what websites like Politifact try to do, and given the stirs surrounding them lately, it seems as if they're becoming increasingly lousy at it. Jared Bernstein dinged them yesterday after they referred to a statement President Obama made in the State of the Union about jobs as "half-true." The presidents facts were correct, Politifact said, but he couldn't take all the credit for the jobs created... even though he didn't claim he could. Politifact has since upgraded their evaluation to "mostly true," which, by my judgement, is still entirely inaccurate.

Paul Krugman is unimpressed:

Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage. In the case of Obama’s job statement, Politifact first called it only half true, then upgraded that to mostly true, not because Obama said anything factually incorrect, but because Politifact perceived Obama as trying to imply that he was responsible for the gains.

Read More

In actuality, however, Politifact seems to have been trying to do exactly what the New York Times's Public Editor was asking whether journalists should do: police truth. The problem is twofold: yes, Politifact is doing an increasingly poor job of policing truth, but truth is never the cut-and-dried thing we imagine it to be. Fact-checking websites try to claim credibility by setting themselves up as impartial observers, but in politics, there are so many shades of grey that even a disinterested fact checker should be assumed to be just one more voice in the fray — potentially a highly credible voice, but certainly no kind of godlike figure.

This is a point Kevin Drum recently made:  

There are, among lefties, a smallish number of issues where we believe that conservatives routinely peddle flagrant factual falsehoods that ought to be refuted immediately. Climate change is the obvious one, and there are a few others. But the truth is that misstatements of plain facts are fairly rare. That's just not how most political debate works. I think that federal stimulus would be good for the economy. Republicans claim otherwise. Is this a fact? No: it's an argument. That kind of thing makes up about 99 percent of all political discourse. It's just not fact-checkable in the usual sense.

See also Communication Studies professor Matthew McGlone telling the New York Times that politicians get away with lying because truth is difficult to define:

Despite centuries of scholarly inquiry into the enigmatic nature of “truth,” in most cultures a simplistic notion of a dichotomy persists: statements are either true or not, and speakers who knowingly produce the former are being honest and those who knowingly produce the latter are lying. There are situations in which this formulation works, but countless more in which we pretend the line is clear — even when we know otherwise.

In particular, we know that many political messages are passed off as truths, although a little inspection reveals the statements have only some degree of truth. The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead observed that “all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.”

This is the unsolvable problem of political media: we long for someone to hold disingenuous politicians to account, but cannot accept that doing so requires a definition of truth that doesn't exist. Of course, the alternative, in which partisans flee to figures who repeat their preferred definition of truth as if it were gospel is not particularly desirable either. 

Hide


Bookmark and Share

Print This Post 0 Comments

Recent Posts

Archive