I'd like to see....

[rhu]

Forget "I'm John Doe, and I approve this message." I'd love to see the campaigns be able to voluntarily submit ads to FactCheck.org, and if FactCheck determines that the ads contain no inaccuracies, then the campaign would be allowed to include an "Approved by FactCheck" symbol on screen for the duration of the ad.

Since this would be voluntary on a per-ad basis, it would not preclude a campaign from rushing a response ad on the air without the FactCheck seal of approval, nor would it prevent a campaign from indulging in a combination of intentionally misleading uncertified ads with their more responsible counterparts. But once a few ads went out with the "Approved by FactCheck" seal, I bet people would start looking for that, and would start wondering about the ads that lack it.

My username is 530nm330hz, and I approve this blog posting.

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

Approved by mabfan. Look for the "Approved by mabfan." seal. Ork ork.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

I like that idea.

[cellio]

That would be wonderful.

[jadelennox]

what an incredibly brilliant idea. You should propose this to factcheck.

(Good yontif.)

[uncanny-npl.livejournal.com]

But what about all the ads that just insinuate, imply their condemnations? That juxtapose disparate images or facts in such a way that a clueless audience infers a connection between them? Or that use facts selectively to draw skewed conclusions? I mean, for instance, Obama does actually *know* Bill Ayers, who actually *was* an extremist back in the 60s, and Obama *has* worked with Ayers in the past, and *did* receive support from him early in his career. It's not a lie, in the strictest sense, to remind people of those associations--it's just a lie in ethical, maybe spiritual senses. It seems clear--and this is off the top of my head, so it's fine if somebody wants to correct or, even better, refine my point--that "facts" are very slippery, manipulable things. How does a fact-checking watchdog group deal with *that* fact?

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

How does a fact-checking watchdog group deal with *that* fact?

With judgment calls. It's rare that a political ad includes simply untrue statements, but 99% of them contain strictly true but highly misleading statements. Factcheck.org tries to use good judgment in determining the truthfulness of claims, and most of their complaints are about things that are misleading rather than actually false.

It's tough to do right all the time; I disagree with their judgments occasionally, and I expect most people would disagree at least occasionally. Expanding their remit beyond strict fact-checking to include connotation and implication makes them a much more useful source, but less effective as the sort of purely impartial arbiter you would want for what 530nm330hz suggests.

[uncanny-npl.livejournal.com]

Yes, you make a good point. I'm going to have to go now and check out "factcheck", get a better idea of what they do and how well they're received by various parts of the political spectrum. I guess my worry would be that if their judgments went in directions that candidates didn't like, then the candidate and his/her followers would just shrug the whole organization off as biased. In fact, I find it hard to believe that there'd be any arbitrator--besides, maybe, God--who'd be acceptable to all candidates. But maybe I'm just overly cynical about the American electoral process.

[uncanny-npl.livejournal.com]

Just looked at the wiki article on factcheck.org. It sounds like a great organization, and I'm definitely going to check it out.

But there is, in the wiki article, this paragraph:

"As FactCheck.org is primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, its claims of non-partisan efforts are questionable as Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of a project that was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a Chicago public reform project that brought together civic, business and university leaders, as well as foundations and other groups, in support of 18 school improvement projects. It built broad public-private coalitions consisting of mayors, superintendents, principals, union leaders, civic leaders and community groups."

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about: it's so easy to suspect--or, anyway, to accuse--even the most objective arbitrators of bias.

(It's like the way everybody's always saying Fox News is just a shill for the radical right, when their very *motto* tells you right off that they're "fair and balanced." I mean, if you can't trust somebody's *motto,* what *can* you trust?)

Here's the funny thing...

[jikamens.livejournal.com]

The founder of the Annenberg Foundation was a conservative Republican his whole life. He served in the Reagan administration and was a friend and supporter of many prominent Republicans.

His widow, who now runs the Foundation, also served in the Reagan administration (as Director of Protocol, if I recall correctly) and has also always been a conservative Republican and a friend to many of them.

Several of his children also work for the Foundation, and they, too, are all Republicans.

So to claim that anything funded by the Annenberg Foundation is biased toward the Democracts is patently absurd. Mind you, that doesn't keep the Republicans from claiming it every time FactCheck.org criticizes McCain, but this shouldn't be surprising, given how many other absurd claims they have made.

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

But maybe I'm just overly cynical about the American electoral process.

Sorry, impossible.

Forget FactCheck ads; what about FactCheck debates?

[jikamens.livejournal.com]

I had a similar idea I was talking to Andrea about after the second debate. There should be a non-partisan fact-check panel at every debate, with a buzzer. Every time either candidate says something false or misleading, they buzz in and offer the opponent the opportunity to correct the misstatement, and if he declines, they correct it themselves.

Ideally, the buzzer would remain silent throughout the debates, because the candidates would be smart enough not to try to slip anything past them. It might take them a debate or two to figure that out, though :-).

I don't think it would be at all difficult for the fact-check panel to respond to false and misleading statements in real-time, because the fact of the matter is that all the candidates do during the debates is repeat the same talking points they've been saying in their ads and stump speeches, so they've all been fact-checked already. For those new statements that take a little time to verify, the panel would have Internet access and there would be a few points scheduled into the debate to allow the panel to catch up on things they had to look up before responding to.

I'm sure it'll never happen, but wouldn't it be great?