I read “The Whoppers of 2007” in the Accuracy & Assertions of Fact category and “Accountability Journalism” in the Truth & Objectivity category.
“The Whoppers of 2007” is about all the incorrect or misleading things politicians or their PACs said last year and tried to pass off as fact. What’s scary about all the entries FactCheck.org turned up is that most of them are obscure facts or figures that don’t sound outrageous. All these “facts” were broadcast and printed, so people heard or read them and had no reason to second-guess them and so took them to be true. Incorrect facts like these, whether reported wrong on purpose or by accident, are dangerous because they can then spread and perpetuate misinformation.
“Accountability Journalism” suggests how reporters can take precautions to prevent false facts from getting published in the first place. The Poynter Institute offers different methods that may help: following up on given facts and what happens to signed bills and political promises seems like a good idea. Even if no incorrect facts are exposed, it will at least ensure that reporters hold politicians responsible for everything. I think AP Ohio’s “Reality Check” feature is a good idea. It makes sure reporters write about progress made or not made since bills were enacted and how this will affect Ohio citizens.
Following up on previous political occurrences won’t help if news sources don’t initially catch errors from the first reporting. This can be helped with careful copy editing. The average copy editor probably won’t know if a fact seems incorrect off the top of his or her head unless it seems totally outrageous, but it is still up to copy editors to try to find out, even if facts seem plausible. That’s why having a variety of fact-checking resources is very valuable to copy editors.
Tags: accountability, follow-up, misinformation, whoppers
