Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Politifarce
Everyone seems to agree that a key role of the media in a democratic
society is to serve as the watchdog on behalf of the citizenry of those
who exercise power--public and private. Furthermore, most people would
agree that a key role of the press in a democratic society is to provide
accurate and untainted information in an election so citizens can best
choose the person who is most in line with our interests. This would
include cutting through the clutter and lies that are at the heart of
political advertising in political campaigns.
Political advertising, as we well know, is not subjected to the same regulations as commercial advertising--government does not insure the political ads are being honest in the claims they make. Somehow giving government that role violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and yet in other democratic countries, it is accepted that government, who supposedly is working on behalf of "the people", checks the veracity of political ads.
Since government cannot do this, the job naturally falls to the media--that independent institution with standing in the Constitution. But the media in the United States is also subject to a greater power than the people--it must bow to shareholders, who seek a return on their investments. Because this is true, fact checking advertising by the press is something that went by the way side beginning in the 1980s, when the media in the US went through a massive transformation, resulting from downsizing and consolidation. "Do more with less" was the motto. And when the media was challenged for neglecting factchecking advertising--something that everyone agrees is at the core of its functions--well the reasons offered had something to do with "objectivity" and avoiding the taint of "bias". See, if the media challenged the things featured in a political ad, that was seen as taking sides, and taking sides is not being objective. Objectivity, of course, is the Rosetta Stone of American Journalism. No matter that in the past, particularly in the late 19th century and early 20th century, journalists who were considered muckrakers saw it as the essential mission of journalists to challenge the powerful--thus journalists brought down the political machines that choked democracy in big cities across the U.S, as well as shining a light on the mistreatment of workers in stockyards, coal mines, and manufacturing.
It wasn't until the Internet came along, and with it a non-media, not for profit organization called Factcheck.org, that brought factchecking back into the newsroom. Factcheck.org was run out of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and former CNN reporter Brooks Jackson. They began to challenge the factual basis of political advertising about a decade ago, and because they had the market to themselves, they generated a lot of traffic from people looking to separate truth from lies. The site also challenges Internet rumors, and can be a great resource if you have loonies in your family tree who feel compelled to alert you to the impending take over of the US by the United Nations.
In 2004, the site was mentioned by VP Dick Cheney in his debate with John Edwards, though Cheney gave the web address as "Factcheck.com". A supporter of Kerry-Edwards quickly registered the domain name, and for every hit on Factcheck.com, it directed the person to an anti-Bush website. But because of the interest in fact checking, the news media in the U.S. began to return to the business of fact checking ads as well as claims/assertions made in town hall meetings and in debates. Thus the Washington Post created their own column, "The Fact Checker", that rated ads by how many Pinnochios it registered (Pinnochio being the wannabe boy whose nose would grow whenever he told a lie. If an ad received four Pinocchios, rest assured it was an outright lie.
Similarly, the Tampa Bay Times created "Politifact.com", where they would measure an ad on a "Truth-O-Meter", where it could range from "Mostly True" to "Pants on Fire", as in "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire". And it is Politifact that is the subject of this posting. The Internet has been abuzz with a story coming out of Politifact, where it awarded Mitt Romney's campaign ad about Jeeps being made in China as the "Lie of the Year"! Some context: in the closing days of the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney ran an ad in Ohio claiming that Chrysler--who makes the Jeep--had begun the process of shuttering its manufacturing plants in Ohio and shipping them to China--thus American jobs being sent overseas to China. This at the behest of the Obama administration. The ad--which was desperate in its design--provoked an instant negative reaction from the press, politicians, and especially Chrysler, which held its own press conference to take the unusual step to denounce an ad run in a presidential campaign. It is still somewhat of a mystery why Romney's people thought this ad was a good ideal, but for whatever reason, it backfired in a big way.
So why is the newspaper in the business of handing out awards? Well for the same reason that Time Magazine has been naming it's "Person of the Year"--it boost circulation size. Politifact has banked on the ideal that naming the Romney ad the biggest pants on fire of them all would generate buzz, and that buzz would find bring it lots and lots of unique visitors to the website, and lots and lots of unique visitors equals more money from advertisers. So Politifact decided to make news, rather than report, not for anything noble as democracy or maintaining an informed citizenship, but solely for the bottom line. Which means that this exercise in fact checking by the media is subject to market demands irregardless of whether the public wants them continued. Sure enough, if fact checking becomes more a cost than a benefit, we may very well return to the days of Factcheck.org owning the entire market to itself.
I am reminded of a scene from the movie "The Rainmaker", featuring Matthew Damon as an idealistic young attorney going up against a corporate lawfirm. At one point Damon asks the lead attorney for the insurance company he is suing, played by Jon Voight: "I'm just wonderin'...do you even remember when you first sold out?"
Political advertising, as we well know, is not subjected to the same regulations as commercial advertising--government does not insure the political ads are being honest in the claims they make. Somehow giving government that role violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and yet in other democratic countries, it is accepted that government, who supposedly is working on behalf of "the people", checks the veracity of political ads.
Since government cannot do this, the job naturally falls to the media--that independent institution with standing in the Constitution. But the media in the United States is also subject to a greater power than the people--it must bow to shareholders, who seek a return on their investments. Because this is true, fact checking advertising by the press is something that went by the way side beginning in the 1980s, when the media in the US went through a massive transformation, resulting from downsizing and consolidation. "Do more with less" was the motto. And when the media was challenged for neglecting factchecking advertising--something that everyone agrees is at the core of its functions--well the reasons offered had something to do with "objectivity" and avoiding the taint of "bias". See, if the media challenged the things featured in a political ad, that was seen as taking sides, and taking sides is not being objective. Objectivity, of course, is the Rosetta Stone of American Journalism. No matter that in the past, particularly in the late 19th century and early 20th century, journalists who were considered muckrakers saw it as the essential mission of journalists to challenge the powerful--thus journalists brought down the political machines that choked democracy in big cities across the U.S, as well as shining a light on the mistreatment of workers in stockyards, coal mines, and manufacturing.
It wasn't until the Internet came along, and with it a non-media, not for profit organization called Factcheck.org, that brought factchecking back into the newsroom. Factcheck.org was run out of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and former CNN reporter Brooks Jackson. They began to challenge the factual basis of political advertising about a decade ago, and because they had the market to themselves, they generated a lot of traffic from people looking to separate truth from lies. The site also challenges Internet rumors, and can be a great resource if you have loonies in your family tree who feel compelled to alert you to the impending take over of the US by the United Nations.
In 2004, the site was mentioned by VP Dick Cheney in his debate with John Edwards, though Cheney gave the web address as "Factcheck.com". A supporter of Kerry-Edwards quickly registered the domain name, and for every hit on Factcheck.com, it directed the person to an anti-Bush website. But because of the interest in fact checking, the news media in the U.S. began to return to the business of fact checking ads as well as claims/assertions made in town hall meetings and in debates. Thus the Washington Post created their own column, "The Fact Checker", that rated ads by how many Pinnochios it registered (Pinnochio being the wannabe boy whose nose would grow whenever he told a lie. If an ad received four Pinocchios, rest assured it was an outright lie.
Similarly, the Tampa Bay Times created "Politifact.com", where they would measure an ad on a "Truth-O-Meter", where it could range from "Mostly True" to "Pants on Fire", as in "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire". And it is Politifact that is the subject of this posting. The Internet has been abuzz with a story coming out of Politifact, where it awarded Mitt Romney's campaign ad about Jeeps being made in China as the "Lie of the Year"! Some context: in the closing days of the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney ran an ad in Ohio claiming that Chrysler--who makes the Jeep--had begun the process of shuttering its manufacturing plants in Ohio and shipping them to China--thus American jobs being sent overseas to China. This at the behest of the Obama administration. The ad--which was desperate in its design--provoked an instant negative reaction from the press, politicians, and especially Chrysler, which held its own press conference to take the unusual step to denounce an ad run in a presidential campaign. It is still somewhat of a mystery why Romney's people thought this ad was a good ideal, but for whatever reason, it backfired in a big way.
So why is the newspaper in the business of handing out awards? Well for the same reason that Time Magazine has been naming it's "Person of the Year"--it boost circulation size. Politifact has banked on the ideal that naming the Romney ad the biggest pants on fire of them all would generate buzz, and that buzz would find bring it lots and lots of unique visitors to the website, and lots and lots of unique visitors equals more money from advertisers. So Politifact decided to make news, rather than report, not for anything noble as democracy or maintaining an informed citizenship, but solely for the bottom line. Which means that this exercise in fact checking by the media is subject to market demands irregardless of whether the public wants them continued. Sure enough, if fact checking becomes more a cost than a benefit, we may very well return to the days of Factcheck.org owning the entire market to itself.
I am reminded of a scene from the movie "The Rainmaker", featuring Matthew Damon as an idealistic young attorney going up against a corporate lawfirm. At one point Damon asks the lead attorney for the insurance company he is suing, played by Jon Voight: "I'm just wonderin'...do you even remember when you first sold out?"
