John McCain speaks to the media at a rally in Columbia, S.C. (Joshua Lott/Reuters)
Media truth squads and the ’08 campaign: Any impact?
Reporters aim to check facts behind candidates’ claims, but effect on voters is unclear.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer/ September 18, 2008 edition
Reporter Linda Feldmann discusses the media’s role as fact-checker of the candidates' claims in ’08.
Reporter Linda Feldmann
Washington
“A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on,” it is said in a quote commonly attributed to Scottish inventor James Watt.
This aphorism may never have felt more true than in the 2008 presidential campaign. And more than ever, independent organizations and media outlets – from the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Factcheck.org to Politifact, a project by the St. Petersburg Times, to other truth-squadding efforts in the mainstream media – have tried to referee the claims and assertions of the candidates and their campaigns.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP vice-presidential nominee, has stated repeatedly that she rejected the so-called “bridge to nowhere” as congressional pork, when in fact she welcomed it until it became politically radioactive in Washington. She continued to repeat her “thanks, but no thanks” line long after a wave of media stories punctured her claim.
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, has dined out for months on how his Republican rival, John McCain, wants to wage war in Iraq for 100 more years when, in fact, Senator McCain’s point was that he was willing to maintain a US military presence in Iraq long after the hostilities had ended, as the US did in Europe after World War II.
But given the low regard in which the public holds the news media, is all this truth-squadding having an impact?
“To some extent, it’s in the eye of the beholder,” says Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. “Facts derive their meaning from the context in which viewers see them.”
In other words, some people are going to care deeply that, for example, Governor Palin is making questionable or untrue assertions about her record and others won’t. “It depends on your view of Sarah Palin,” says Mr. Rosenstiel.
A recent Gallup poll shows that the public’s view of media coverage of Palin depends greatly on partisan affiliation. A majority of Republicans – 54 percent – say the coverage has been unfairly negative, while only 29 percent of independents and 18 percent of Democrats feel that way. So it is through that filter that voters will assess fact-checking. And it may well be that the wave of columns and editorials in the mainstream press expressing outrage over McCain’s statements and ads about Obama will serve mainly to satisfy McCain’s opponents, while doing little to change the minds of his supporters. How undecided voters and “soft leaners” – those not firmly in one camp or the other – are affected remains unclear.
Often, such voters don’t start really focusing on the campaign until the very end.
Other research indicates that attempts to correct misinformation are unlikely to change minds. In an experiment by two academics, volunteers were given a mock news article with potentially misleading information – half with a correction, half without. The researchers discovered that the group that received the correction may end up believing the misleading information more strongly after hearing the correction.
“The argument we make in the paper is that people are counterarguing in their heads,” says Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Duke University and one of the researchers. “They’re coming up with reasons to disagree with the factual claim, and actually convincing themselves more than they would have believed otherwise.”
Still, fact-checking is a media growth industry. The St. Petersburg Times has found a ready audience in other papers, through the use of a Web tool called Widgets, for its research. As politicians have become more aggressive about communications and spin, “the press has moved from being a color commentator in the booth to at least at times being a referee on the field,” says Rosenstiel from Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Rosenstiel and other press observers attribute the rise and speed of fact-checking in this election at least in part to the “swift boat” phenomenon in the 2004 election, in which Democratic nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War record was eviscerated by his opponents. Still, the candidates this year have seemed lax about correcting false information. Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck
.org, notes that the McCain campaign repeatedly asserts that Obama is going to raise taxes broadly, while the truth is that Obama’s plan would raise taxes only on those earning more than $250,000 a year while cutting taxes for 80 percent of workers and their families. Obama has not moved assertively to correct this misimpression, and polls show that majorities of middle-income voters believe that Obama would raise their taxes.
In the face of a false accusation, many politicians – including some of the most successful, such as former President Bill Clinton – will simply change the subject, and attack the opposition on something else. In 1993, when Mr. Clinton was accused of signing the “largest tax increase in history,” he didn’t counter with, “well, in fact, it was the 12th or 13th largest increase in history.” Instead, he accused the Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare, Mr. Jackson says.
Comments
2. Vitaly | 09.18.08
McCain never said that he is going to fight the war in Iraq for 100 years, but he did say that he is willing to stay there as long as it takes.
3. DRJ | 09.18.08
McCain’s lies are so amateurish that they have turned me off to him on two levels: (1) that he will sacrfice his much-paraded integrity and stoop to such bold-faced lies, and (2) if he can’t lie better than that then his conduct of foreign affairs will further antogonize our enemies and alienate our allies by revealing himself to be a simpleton and a buffoon. I was leaning toward McCain before he started basing his campaign on intentionally misleading and false information about Obama. At least Nixon could lie without coming off as the clown at the County fair.
4. monopoly | 09.18.08
I find that many of the fact-check efforts in the press contain serious critical reasoning problems. Just because Palin supported the bridge during her campaign (and the one quote I’ve seen is a very general, vague expression of support; saying she “welcomed it” is too strong), doesn’t mean it’s untrue that she killed it shortly after taking office–and that’s all she’s saying in her speeches. So her claim is 100% true and the media has not “punctured” it.
And McCain’s claim that Obama will raise taxes broadly is also true. Obama has said he will raise capital gains and dividend taxes and those are taxes that much of the middle class pays. Also, I’ve never seen a story or an ad outlining how Obama will cut taxes for 95% of people, the claim that he makes in his speeches. He certainly isn’t publicizing the specifics, so that raises doubts in voters’ minds over whether he really will cut taxes. Also, Obama has a long track record as a tax raiser, so I think it’s fair for McCain to say that he will raise taxes again as president. In the end, this McCain assertion on taxes can’t be fact-checked–it’s McCain’s opinion, based on Obama’s record, what he’s said and the Democrats history with tax increases. If Obama wants to overcome this impression, he’d have to make a much stronger effort to prove his bona fides.
5. BossusMaximus | 09.18.08
In Palin’s GOP Convention speech I heard her say “I said ‘Thanks but no thanks’ to Congress over the Bridge to Nowhere.”
However, the State of Alaska kept the money. Where is the “No thanks” part????
Also look at this link. In July of 2007, Palin was asked to kill a project associated with the infamous Bridge. She didn’t. Cost us $27,000,000.000. So much for someone against earmarks.
The bigger picture is two things:
1. Paling claims to be one thing, but her actions show another. A familiar pattern from the GOP.
2. All the “earmarks” total to less than 1% of the Federal budget. So how do you think cutting all the earmarks is going to affect us all… Again, this analysis makes the “earmarks” debate sound like more obfuscation from our Republican friends. S
So much for the Straight Talk Express.
6. Spruce | 09.18.08
Even Karl Rove, the mastermind of dumbing down voters, mudslinging, and the culture wars, has said that McCain has gone too far with his lies. That is what most of McCain’s campaign is - mudslinging, distractions from the issues, calls for culture warfare (can’t trust those “educated folks”), and lies.
See for yourself a comparison of the tax plans. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
McCain’s plan will add $4.5 trillion to the debt, Obama’s plan will add $3.3 trillion.
Speaking of lip service, McCain has done flip flops on many important issues, including tax cuts for wealthy, torture, campaign finance reform, abortion, offshore drilling, and now, deregulation which he has long been a proponent of.
7. olivio | 09.18.08
@monopoly
your response butress the authors point. personally i would be ashamed if my candidate conducted his campaign in the manner maccain has, especially since he has long presented himself as a man of honor. this has been lacking in his campaign. desperation (yes desperation) for office of this magnitide alone should disqualify the candidate from office.
8. kayce basques | 09.19.08
source on the experiment where “attempts to correct misinformation is unlikely to change minds”? I would have liked to present this in my journalism class because it is a interesting article but the lack of sources cited is disheartening.
9. Donald | 09.19.08
Obama presses to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends. Capital gains and dividends taxes are taxes that stockholders and corporations and businesses pay, not the ordinary middle class Americans. Ordinary Americans do not have “capital gains” taxes. Ordinary Americans do not pay taxes on “dividends” because they don’t have any. Unfortunately, because of double speak and “cat-knip=talk-knip” journalism, people don’t trust the facts when they are revealed, and the result is a decline in judgment. Some studies have shown that the top 10% of Americans own 85% to 90% of the stock. However, 401K’s and other retirement options would seem to imply a greater share from the “middle class”..but all to often individually, they actually possess an insignificant share of the total!!!! The point is not that…the point is a real income gap that is growing!!!! It is sapping the middle and lower classes. The greatest evidence is in the record number of bankruptices that have fed the current economic crisis. Obama is correct in this, that we must address the growing numbers of us that simply don’t have the income any more, no matter how you window dress it, it means those having the “majority” of the wealth, must ante up and accept their responsiblity to our human welfare. We do not live in the same kind of society that exists in Alaska, where people often go hunt a winter’s store of meat, nor do we live in a country where everyone owns stocks and has capital gains. Obama’s plan addresses this issue. McCain and conservative economists raise the banner of a free market, when we do not truly have it any longer. We have created an administrative monster (to the condemnation of liberal doctrines) and we have spawned a tax system and financial system that is rapidly becoming exploitative (To the condemnation of the conservatives). Regardless, our current reality is that Obama’s plan does raise taxes where they need to be raised (On those who can afford it), and reduces them where they need to be reduced (On those who can’t afford to pay them). We cannot calculate how many homes might yet be owned had the owner’s had just that little extra in personal income to get them through. But someone who has stock portfolios and income streams and personal wealth in hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars will not and cannot understand this principle. Yet, this latter group are fewer and fewer, and the former group grow more and more each day.
10. scott conner | 09.19.08
I too would like to see the misinformation/correction study. I have a background in logic, and believe myself immune from many of the false/misleading claims from both sides. I also hold no strong affiliation with either party. I consider myself to be Libertarian Progressive and am genuinely open to various claims. I do have a rubric where I tend to move to one camp or the other–namely monopolies (utilities/gasoline/banking and Healthcare are not “free-markets”) may need a regulator, though I don’t presume this be a gov’t regulator. Other competitive enterprises probably shouldn’t be interfered with by gov’t.
I find the level of political debate to consist of red herrings and distractions that obfuscate the issues. Simply put, the 3 big expenditures (90%) of federal spending are entitlements, war machine, and interest on the debt. Deficit spending is the greatest threat to this country, and we need to cut spending/raise revenues until our $58 trillion in Federal obligations are shored up. Otherwise, interest will consume increasing amounds of our budget threatening our defense and entitlement spending.
Our entitlement obligations will increase 4 fold based solely upon demographics. And our borrowing $500 billion a year exacerbates the issue. Our military dominance will end in a decade based solely on economics. We’d better get our affairs in order post haste or we will all be saddled with incredible taxes or national bankruptcy.
Fact check that, 100% true. note: the $58 trillion exceeds David Walker’s claim by $5 trillion, but he hasn’t factored in the Fannie/Freddie bailout, I do, while I’ve not addressed the other new bailouts we’ve seen this week.
You can e-mail me at flowrpower2002@yahoo.com with any arguments or refutations.
Scott in Dallas.
11. FailinPalin | 09.19.08
The only difference between Bush/Cheney and “Palin/McCain” = L I P S T I C K
12. Al | 09.19.08
Why don’t you find it yourself? You’ve got the name of the researcher, and the school he’s operating from. This isn’t a research paper — do you really expect a bibliography?
13. dotty | 09.19.08
A popular Scottsdale Arizona theater had to place crowd control gates, as promoters ran out of tickets for OBAMA THE HYPE which aired to a completely packed house of the curious and on the fence voters.
The complete absence of anyone left solidly for Obama, was stated to be a remarkable statement of shame and fear for the truth about B.O.
Apparently, one theme in the documentary’s content was that the “organizer in the community” made no change.
Is the community still in the same sad shape as the day the organizer showed up?
If so, it is a stunning eyeopener about “hope” for his economic plans on a larger scale.
14. Catch22 | 09.19.08
Part of the problem is the lure of false equivalency.
For example in the case of the 100 years comment. The question McCain was answering was how long do you plan to stay in Iraq which is of course at war, and not about some fictional fantasy future. McCain has in the past said that Iraq is not like South Korea or Japan yet now he engages in fantasy to assume that it does.
How many years will it be before Iraq is likely to be like Japan or South Korea? Has McCain said?
15. Mike | 09.19.08
The problem with the media fact checkers, at least the ones I’ve seen, is that they tend to be more interest in spinning the fact that they caught someone in a misstatement,then siding with the opponent, rather than simply pointing out the actual fact. In doing so they seem to loose their objectivity.
16. Jarrett | 09.19.08
As per usual there is nothing in this article that brings up fact-checking on either Obama or Biden. Through my filter it is in keeping with the vast majority of the news media today to focus on Palin and McCain but strangely not the Democrat candidates to the same degree. Much of Obama’s background should be investigated as thoroughly as they are willing to go into Palin’s past. But what are they afraid to uncover? One stump speech comment by Palin is hardly something to worry about compared to Chicago political circles from which Obama arose.
17. Paula Brandt | 09.20.08
What Would Jesus Do? Election 2008 Edition
What would Jesus do to win an election?
Would Jesus lie?
Would Jesus stand silent while others did so on his behalf?
Would Jesus belittle his opponents?
Which campaign ads would Jesus approve?
How would Jesus want us to share the bounty of our nation?
Would Jesus deny anyone medical care?
Would Jesus vilify an immigrant, even one who entered the country illegally?
How would Jesus treat his Father’s creation?
Would Jesus deem any criminal beyond remorse and redemption?
Did Jesus really mean we should love our enemies?
Did Jesus leave any loopholes in the Golden Rule?
Who would Jesus ridicule?
Who would Jesus execute?
Who would Jesus waterboard?
Who would Jesus bomb?
Who would Jesus hate?
Considering these questions will not yield specific answers about when war is justified, whether our energy policy should include off-shore drilling, whether our immigration policy should include “amnesty,” whether single-payer health insurance makes economic sense, how best to defeat terrorism, and what the corporate tax rate should be. But when all four major presidential and VP candidates (and most voters) identify themselves as Christians, shouldn’t these questions at least influence the way these issues are approached and how campaigns are conducted? It would be presumptuous to speculate about how Jesus would vote. But shouldn’t we consider to what extent each candidate’s words, actions, and priorities reflect the teachings of Jesus?
18. Ival Secrest | 09.20.08
As an independent with libertarian leanings, I have lost any faith in most all news media because they are unable to write an article or say anything on TV without their bias showing. The are just as untruthful as the candidates.
I am convinced that 99% of the news media is unconcerned and uninterested about the future of the USA. I would like to see something that would convince me otherwise.
19. Dana Prinz | 09.20.08
Interestingly, by telling only one story on the Obama campaign, and several on the McCain campaign, this article leaves the impression that the majority of lies have been on the side of the GOP. In fact, I would argue that the Democrats have been at least as deceitful in their attacks on the McCain-Palin campaign as the Republicans on the Obama-Biden ticket. Here’s the best, most recent example: Obama keeps charging that McCain wants to continue Bush’s economic policies, while McCain has conscientiously disassociated himself with Bush’s bail-out of Wall Street.
Be that as it may, exaggerations and grandstanding are to be expected by the candidates in a political campaign. What is not to be expected, and what is increasingly worrisome and frustrating today, is the way the press has bent the truth about the candidates. It used to be that political commentary was about teasing out the facts regarding candidates and their policies. But in this campaign journalists have thrown truth and even basic decency to the wind. Here the treatment of Palin is a good example. First, journalists went after Palin’s daughter. castigating the governor for being a bad mother. Recently, they seem to be attached to the groundless charge that she is a “Creationist.”
Of course the public holds the news media in low regard! It hasn’t escaped the readers of newspapers, not to mention the viewers of TV, that it’s getting increasingly difficult for voters to sift through the issues when the press insists upon clouding them. Personally, I have given up on the “news” as any trustworthy source of information regarding the candidates, and am waiting for the debates.
20. Nikolai | 09.20.08
@ Jarrett:
It could be that the article does not cover Obama/Biden because they’ve been telling the truth all along 
But of course, that’s not the case. As of 10 pm Saturday, on the front page of factcheck.org out of 9 stories about misrepresenting ads, 5 were from the McCain-Palin campaign, and 4 were from Obama-Biden.
21. Grabbag | 09.20.08
On the “Bridge to Nowhere”; I think we ought to at least give Palin a fair hearing. Before Shawn Hannity, Palin said that the initial costs for that bridge were estimated at @ 250 million dollars. Subsequently those costs crept to about twice that amount, or over 400 million. Now if I had been in her place, and thought: ‘it would be nice to build a way to get back and forth from that place; I can easily imagine being FOR a bridge at $250,000,000, but backing out at a price that had doubled from the original estimate. If the reader will follow my logic, that means you could have been for it at a reasonable cost, but later change your mind, and be against it as you saw the estimates spiral out of control, i.e. be too expensive.
22. A. Bitter Clinger | 09.21.08
“Media Truth Squad” is so appallingly oxymoronic that one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the very idea.
23. John | 09.21.08
McCain/Palin can only win this election by lying because the Republican party and their policies have royally screwed things up. After all, they can’t run on their record by saying “We blinded government oversight of Wall Street so now we’re spending billions to avoid a depression!!”, or “Under our leadership the oil companies have made the biggest profits in history!!” or “We invaded a country under a false pretext and 4,000 of our soldiers have been killed so far!!”, or “Fellow American, we made it so that you’re spending more on healthcare and getting less for it!!”, or “Hey we managed to secure huge tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and now our the government is running debts instead of surpluses!!”, etc.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Catherine | 09.18.08
Why hasn’t Obama countered with “McCain tells you that I will raise taxes on the middle class. But he is lying. He believes the middle class includes those making up to 5 million per year. Yet, I plan to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, and CUT TAXES for those in the middle class making less than $250,000 per year. Why is McCain lying to you? Because he has no plan, no vision, for the solutions America needs. So he lies about his opponent… Joe Biden and I are the voice for the average American and will always fight for what is right for the MAJORITY of Americans. You need tax relief and a better life. Only we can provide that…” Or something like that. McCain’s campaign is simply out-marketing the Dems. Listen to the radio ads about Obama wanting to take away everyone’s second amendment rights - airing during the VTech Hokies games. Smart advertising needs a quality response from Obama. Otherwise McCain will win having made no plans and having no vision. The only thing he will have accomplished is the out-marketing of the all-too-numerous American herd.