Politifact: Love It And Hate It

For those of you not familiar with Politifact.com, it's a Pulitzer Prize winning website who's mission is to fact check statements by major players in American politics. This includes members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Cabinet Members, White House staff, lobbyists, and even the occasional yard sign or chain E-mail. They rate statements using their "Truth-O-Meter", with ratings ranging from "True" all the way down to "Pants on Fire" for really egregious falsehoods and outright fabrications. They also keep running records of individuals so you can get an idea of how truthful that person has been. 

So, here's why I love Politifact. It provides a service that is increasingly rare in today's media: unbiased research. It doesn't pick sides, it doesn't shy away from sensitive topics, and it never takes any statement at face value. In a nation that's based on representative government, cutting through the quagmire of posturing and punditry that permeates the political process is key to understanding important issues and making wise decisions. It also provides a degree of entertainment because you will often find yourself laughing at some of the patently false statements that people are making, and that their audiences are believing! Is it perfect? By it's own admission, no. They've made mistakes, but they also correct them if they become aware of them. Do I trust them completely? No; I don't believe that any one source can find "the whole truth" behind a story, but I do value their factual research greatly when making up my own mind about something.

And here's what I hate about Politifact. I hate the fact that it's even necessary. To me, Politifact represents the downfall of journalism in the mainstream media. It's doing the job that the major news outlets used to do; finding the facts and reporting them. But more and more, the major "news" outlets are just a source of opinions, re-stated party lines, and even entertainment in the form of political theater or trumped-up courtroom drama. I very much respect and value the work that Politifact does, but, as a friend put it, sources like that should be the double-check for reporting, not the source. We live in a time where a comedian, Jon Stewart, is considered by many to be the most trusted news anchor on television (I question the validity of the actual poll due to it's small sample size, but not it's sentiment). He often does more research on a story than his major news counterparts. What's wrong with this picture?

Here's what I think. Sadly, the problem may not be with the mainstream media at all. Above all else, the networks are businesses, and to make a profit they need ratings. They need to sell themselves, so they broadcast what they feel most people want to hear. There was a time when people wanted to hear facts, when they wanted to hear reporters digging through politicians' shifting talking points. But now it seems that people just want to feel good. They don't want to think, they want other people to think for them. I can't say whether the audience changed before the media or not, and therefore can't place blame since I know not where it lies. But I can say that they have both changed, and I fear that our nation has suffered for it.