Electing to Fact Check

In the history of warfare, major conflicts often brought some breakthrough innovation in technology that defined the scale and outcome of battle.  The English Longbow defined the Hundred Years' War.  The machine gun drove trench warfare of World War I.  And the threat of nuclear weapons defined the Cold War. 

Similarly, every four years the presidential election seems to bring at least once new innovation that defines the period and drives outcomes.  In 1960 it was the use of television and Kennedy's polished look over Nixon's five-o'clock shadow.  In 2004 we saw the rise of bloggers as a respected part of the media sphere of influence.  I predict that this election of 2008 will be defined by the rise of the Fact Checker.

If you take a semi-close look at the newspaper and television coverage of this election, it seems now more than ever that reporters are spending as much time discussing the truth of candidates' statements as they do sharing the statements themselves.  Fox News has the "no spin zone" and CNN talks about "the spin cycle."  In both and other features, experts from both parties counter the claims and check the facts of candidates' words.

I've been particularly impressed by the work of FactCheck.org.  Factcheck.org is a non-partisan, non-profit group that "aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."  The group is a project by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.  The website is the hub of the group and it is surprisingly deep.  There are RSS feeds and mobile alerts and the fact-checking analysis is updated at least daily.  I found the site to be hard-hitting on both parties.  TV commercials from each side are pointedly criticized - whether it's "an Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record" or "Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy.  Not even close."

Another service that I recently discovered suggests that this trend is bleeding over into other areas of society.  A site called SpinSpotter.com launched in "very beta" just a few weeks ago.  It features an application called "Spinoculars" that "sites in your browser's toolbar" and is "programmed to spot certain indicators of potential bias" in the articles that you read.  Users help add to the rules of the system, and it looks for things like quoting partisan sources, then paints the text in red. 

I believe the rise of Fact Checking and Spin Spotting are types of challenges that will improve our government and broader society.  Overall, these services force competitors to play fair and be truthful, it's a little bit like an attorney in a courtroom being able to "object" to improper language from the other side.  As in a court of law, attorney's end up playing by the rules, and we get a better judicial system.  In politics, marketing and journalism, the rise of services that check our facts will help keep all of us playing equally on a higher-level field.  The liars will fail to hold an edge, and people will tend to trust statements and claims. 

This challenge might lead to a better President in 2009, and better society for centuries to come.

Comments

[Justin Heilbronner]

Let's clear the air for once and for all. Bloggers who work for companies that get money from blogging tend to kiss as* to their bosses. Lots of this in this blog. My boss says ***, His boss says ***. That's so digital! Muh!
Wipe your mouth off!