Political Fact Checking: How to Defuse a War of Words and Keep the Family Intact
The Problem and the Answer
This has been a very contentious election year with charges of lying and untrustworthiness made against both candidates. You have two pairs of uncles and aunts who are supporting different candidates and arguing about politics at family gatherings and in e-mail exchanges. The rest of the family is tired of it and has asked you to come up with some way(s) for them to determine what is true and what is false on both sides. What do you recommend?
My Answer
I have a two-step solution to this problem. First, I need to educate my family about confirmation bias. According to Casad (2007) and Shermer (2006), they need to be aware that even when people are checking out the opposing side, they unconsciously disregard anything that contradicts their viewpoint and assign importance to anything that reinforces their already held beliefs and opinions. This is an emotional response instead of a logical one (Casad, 2007).
Then I need to talk to them about "spin" and the tools needed to check sources for "spin." According to Jackson & Jamieson (2007):
In order for them to verify claims and "facts" in the news, I need to show them four major fact checking Websites: FactCheck.org, Politifact.com, Fact Checker (Washington Post), and Snopes.com and discuss how they can use them to check out claims that seem too good/bad to be true. In spite of the factual and nonpartisan basis of these various sites, I can expect the two extreme couples to declare that some of them are biased against their side. However, all of them are rigorous and well respected in librarianship and journalism.
Additionally, if they need information about government spending, I can also refer them to two trustworthy sources: the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget.
For those in my family who want to dig a bit deeper on how to recognize spin, I will recommend UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. It will help them with advertising and marketing as well as political statements.
Then I need to talk to them about "spin" and the tools needed to check sources for "spin." According to Jackson & Jamieson (2007):
"Spin" is a polite word for deception. Spinners mislead by means that range from subtle omissions to outright lies. Spin paints a false picture of reality by bending facts, mischaracterizing the words of others, ignoring or denying crucial evidence, or just "spinning a yarn"--by making things up.
In order for them to verify claims and "facts" in the news, I need to show them four major fact checking Websites: FactCheck.org, Politifact.com, Fact Checker (Washington Post), and Snopes.com and discuss how they can use them to check out claims that seem too good/bad to be true. In spite of the factual and nonpartisan basis of these various sites, I can expect the two extreme couples to declare that some of them are biased against their side. However, all of them are rigorous and well respected in librarianship and journalism.
Additionally, if they need information about government spending, I can also refer them to two trustworthy sources: the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget.
For those in my family who want to dig a bit deeper on how to recognize spin, I will recommend UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. It will help them with advertising and marketing as well as political statements.
Search Terms & Strategies
Web Searching
The best search was actually suggested by Google: best political fact checking sites. The word "spin" did was not a useful search term. It seems to have fallen out of favor, which is not surprising considering its negative connotation.
General Database Searching
This is a topic that, at the moment, isn’t well represented by subject headings, so subject searching is less helpful than keyword searching. Both databases responded well to keyword searching. However, ABI/Inform Complete requires phrases to be included in quotation marks and Academic Search Complete does not. In both databases, it is important to do multiple searches and vary synonyms until you find a list of good results.
In Academic Search Complete, my first search was the best: election 2016 AND fact checking. I simply had to make it a keyword search. While I tried more searches (fact checking in politics [subject] and campaign AND fact checking), the original search gave me the best results. In ABI/Inform Complete, I tried the subject search first (fact checking in politics [subject]), but it is not used in this database. Through trial and error, I discovered that you have to use quotations marks to do phrase searching, so my best search was “fact checking” AND campaign.
Specialized Database
I simply searched for fact checking in CQ Researcher and got one good result (Media Bias) out of 133 possible results. It is, however, was an excellent report with useful information.
Online Catalog Searching (Catamount Catalog on WorldCat.org)
I used the Books and Media tab and a keyword search: fact checking to search for books. The result list had additional articles and videos, so I had to use the eBook format limiter to see only the books. When I varied my search by using a keyword search: fact-checking, I found more articles, but no more books. As the field of fact checking grows, there will eventually be a subject heading for fact checking that will make searching easier.
Annotated Bibliography*
Websites
Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2016). Home. In FactCheck.org. Retrieved October 2,
2016, from http://www.factcheck.org/
Founded in 2003, FactCheck.org is one of the most authoritative fact checking sites because it is from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which is a highly respected academic organization. Cofounders, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Brooks Jackson, are a respected professor and experienced political reporter and both are experts in their fields. The reviews of issues are non-partisan and scholarly. All claims of truthfulness or dishonesty are backed by reputable and credible sources. The homepage shows the most current reviews, but there is also a searchable archive. The issues are chosen by scanning many different news sources and picking out the trends. In addition, people can write in and ask the staff to research particular questions. FactCheck.org has an informative as well as an educational mission.Congressional Budget Office. (n.d.). In Congressional Budget Office; Nonpartisan
analysis for the U.S. Congress. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/
(skip)
Kessler, G. (2016). Fact checker: The truth behind the rhetoric. In Washington Post.
Retrieved October 3, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ fact-checker/
Fact Checker is part of the Washington Post Website. Originally begun to fact check the 2007 presidential campaign, it was made a permanent feature in 2011. While the newspaper has a reputation as being a liberal newspaper, the Fact Checker is non-partisan in scope and purpose. The lead editor is Glenn Kessler. He is an award winning and experienced journalist and has been doing fact checking since the 1990s. Fact Checker does not check opinions. Instead it checks facts and offers reviews that are clearly and credibly sourced. The homepage shows the most current reviews, but there is also a searchable archive. The facts checked are in trending news stories and additionally readers are invited to ask questions and to offer sources for corrections. Fact Checker has an informative mission. It leavens its serious nature with a rating system using Pinnochio icons (1-4) for problem "facts" and a Geppetto Checkmark for absolutely true facts.
Mikkelson, D., & Mickkelson, B. Snopes.com: Rumor has it. In Snopes.com.
Retrieved October 2, 2016, from http://snopes.com/
(skip)
from http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Founded in 2007 (according to its LinkedIn page), Politifact is part of the Tampa Bay Times Website. The Tampa Bay Times has won 10 Pulitzer Prizes, and Politifact is often referred to by journalists on political and news round tables. Politifact has a national scope. Additionally, it has partnered with other news organizations to offer a few state editions as well. Politifact staff check on statements made by public figures. The reviews of the facts are well documented using reliable sources and a complete explanation of the research and reasoning used. The homepage shows the most current reviews, but there is also a searchable archive. Readers are invited to request statements/facts to be checked. Politifact has an informative mission. It leavens its serious nature with a rating system using a Truth-O-Meter with ratings that range from True to False and beyond to Pants on Fire for ridiculous claims.White House. (n.d.). In Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb
(skip)
Articles (from Books and Periodicals)
Casad, B. J. (2007). Confirmation bias. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs,
Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Retrieved from http://www.libproxy.wvu.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sagesocpsyc/confirmation_bias/0
This is an article from a specialized encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, which is published by Sage Publications, a well-known and respected publisher. The author of the article is Bettina Casad, who (according to her LinkedIn page) is an assistant professor of psychological sciences at the University of Missouri at Saint Louis. The bibliography at the end of the article contains a book and two journal articles. While this gives the information authority and credibility, there is some concern because of the date of the publications: the encyclopedia was published nine years ago and the sources used were published between 18 and 26 years ago. There has been more research since then. Still the basic claims matched the information in the Shermer article, which cited a much more recent study.
Shermer, M. (2006, July 1). The political brain: A recent brain-imaging study shows
that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias.
Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
(skip)
Books
Graves, Lucas (2016). Deciding what's true: The rise of political fact-checking
in American journalism. La Vergne: Columbia University Press. Available
from https://psclibrary.on.worldcat.org/oclc/956139608
This is a very interesting and useful book. Published in September 2016, the book is very current. It is relevant to the topic. It includes a history of fact checking and the state of political fact-checking in our current election environment. As an Assistant Professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, magazine journalist, and a media and technology analyst, he has authority to write on this topic. The Columbia University Press as an acdemic publisher also adds authority to the book. The book covers the history of political fact checking, the various fact checking resources, and the advantages and problems facing fact checkers in our current political and media-saturated environment. The tone is objective and the book is well-researched and documented. I doubt, however, that I can get my family to read it.
Jackson, B., & Jamieson, K. H. (2007). UnSpun: Finding facts in a world of
disinformation (Kindle ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
(skip)* I only annotated every other citation because I have ten sources.
You do not have to separate out your annotated bibliography by format. I, however, have such a large bibliography, that I have chosen to do so. I have also organized the formats by most useful for my family to least useful. The sources in each category are still arranged alphabetically by citation.
Analysis of a Library Subscription Database
I used three different databases: Academic Search Complete, ABI/Inform, and CQ Researcher. The most useful database for this topic is Academic Search Complete. The search system is relatively easy to use. It pulls up both popular and scholarly sources on the topic, and the results can be easily limited by format and date. It has full text for most of the results and provides suggested citations in a large number of citation styles. I didn't use it, but it also has a nice personal login system that allows a student to create and save results lists, searches, and even to subscribe to table of contents alerts for various journals and magazines.
I preferred it because its results seem to be more scholarly than ABI/Inform Complete results even though both databases have scholarly content. While ABI/Inform turned up massive numbers of results, many of these results were not always on target, so it seemed clunkier. I felt it was less intuitive than Academic Search Complete. I also preferred it over CQ Researcher, which I located by going to the list of journalism databases. It contains "briefing" reports on topics of interest to Congress, and they are written by journalists and experts in the field. It turned up one really useful report with lots of different information on the topic and an excellent bibliography. However, an academic research project needs more than just one source, so it was useful, but not best.
Valuable Website
Kessler, G. (2016). Fact checker: The truth behind the rhetoric. In Washington Post.
Retrieved October 3, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/
The Washington Post Fact Checker column is a very reliable source for political news fact checking. It is written by Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post reporter and a journalist with almost 30 years of experience in national and international news reporting. Additional contributors are also Washington Post reporters with subject area expertise. The articles are well-sourced and directly linked to sources whenever possible. The language is clear and concise and nonpartisan in nature. The Pinnocchio noses used as ranking icons are a little kitschy, but no more so than the Liar, Liar Pants on Fire of the Tampa Bay’s Truth-o-Meter. The Fact Checker strives for nonpartisan reporting. However, the Washington Post has a reputation as being a liberal-leaning publication. This is not a major problem because any suspected bias can be quickly checked by comparing the Fact Checker with other fact checking sites such as FactCheck.org, Politifact, Snopes, and others.
Bad Website
Gordon, J. (2016). On the issues: Every political leader on every issue. Retrieved from http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
It has some strengths. It was obviously a good source when it was created in 1999. It won at least one award. However, today, it is less useful. It does seem to have every politician’s stand on every issue, but for the majority of them that is all. There are only a few issues/quotes that have been fact checked. The lack of fact checking probably comes from its dependence on volunteers instead of dedicated staff.
It has multiple weaknesses. The layout is clunky. It has not been updated since the early 2000’s, which makes it confusing. Add to that the ads, which are not always immediately identifiable, and you have a difficult time navigating. It has a lot of broken links. When you go to the About Us page to check the authority of the site, almost every link to publicity about the site is a dead link. Some of the latest dates for various issues are 2015, which makes it seem outdated. It may have nuggets of gold, but they are buried deep.
No comments:
Post a Comment