Fact-checking is an excellent idea in theory, but in practice, it's been less useful. The problem is two-fold: 1) sometimes the arguments are so nuanced that it leaves much up to interpretation and 2) the people doing the fact-checking bring their own biases into it.
Two examples from last night's debate.
Navy Debate
Many people think Obama's best line was during the discussion of the Navy. Romney said the Navy was smaller than since 1917 and the Navy is requesting more ships. The larger point was about how the cuts to military spending will impede our ability to defend ourselves. Obama countered that of course we have fewer ships than we used to, the military has advanced technologically, and we no longer need the same military as we had 100 years ago.
So what do the fact-checkers check? The claim that the Navy has the fewest ships since 1917. The fact is basically correct, although the actual minimum was hit in 2007. They concentrate on this fact and then criticize the point because the ships are different, and it's basically a stupid point to make (which it is). The more important point was that Romney said the Navy itself thinks it needs more ships and the Defense Secretary said these cuts would be devastating. Why not concentrate on these points? They better get to what Romney was trying to argue.
Massachusetts Education Policy
For some reason, President Obama and Governor Romney were disputing Romney's policies on education in Massachusetts. Romney claimed that students had great results, and Obama said that Romney had nothing to do with it. Then Romney talked about how he enacted a law allowing good students to go to college for free. Obama said he didn't do that, either.
So the fact-checkers check the first fact but not the second. Of the three I looked at, none even mentioned the second point Romney made.
Factcheck.org
Politifact
Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment