Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers?

Warning: Cynical post to follow. My Grumpy hat is firmly affixed to my head this morning.

This is rich. The article entitled “Fact-checking journalism gains momentum” almost made me spew my coffee this morning. I couldn’t get past the first line:

Journalists have always faced up to facts, but a new wave of fact-checking journalism has gained prominence in the past decade to counter misleading or outrageous claims of political figures.

The article goes on to highlight notable notables such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, which won a Pulitzer, don’t you know. It references a study noting the growth of the “fact-checking” industry, and the rise of these self-styled, self-knighted bastions of truth.

I don’t deny that fact-checkers can have some value in our national conversation. But they would have far more value as a public service if they would turn the microscope on the journalistic product rather than serving as the arbiters of judgment on every utterance of some politician. Fact-checking certainly hasn’t stopped politicians from lying, but neither has it stopped the news media from presenting biased and misleading reporting. The fact that fact-checking is often just another subsidized branch of a media organization, what value should I give to their pronouncements? Is something a fact or a fiction just because PolitiFact says so? Sorry, not buying it.

But no worries. Soon every organization will have a fact-checking arm, custom-tailored to ensure that their cause or candidate is backed by an unimpeachable, self-accredited truth squad.

I’d like to think there are straight-shooters out there, without an axe or an angle. But the thing is, everyone has an angle. That’s a fact.