No, fact-checking does not lend credibility to journalism

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Oct. 22, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    I'm not convinced. While I agree with the observation that most Americans vote according to "values" unencumbered with facts, I disagree that ignoring facts is a good way at "arriving at sound judgments about who their presidents should be."

    When I look at the political landscape, I see politicians on both sides pandering to uninformed voters with promises that can’t be kept and fear mongering designed to fill the coffers of the military-industrial complex. The result of voting upon "values" that aren't encumbered with facts is a nation that thinks we are entitled to high social security benefits, high Medicare benefits, rich Medicaid-financed nursing home care, a peace-time national defense budget that is closing-in on a trillion dollars annually, and historically low taxes.

    The result of these "values" is unsustainable deficits and political gridlock around fake issues, because neither side of the gridlock is willing to offer real solutions. Apparently, facing reality isn't an American value.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Oct. 21, 2012 2:00 a.m.

    What? Journalists shouldn't be concerned with facts. Do we now have a Bureau of Propaganda? Real-time factchecking by journalists catchs misinformation while the audience is still paying attention. Waiting for the post-debate corrections loses more than half the people who heard the the candidates essentially lie.

    It doesn't matter who is being corrected as long as the correction is made so these guys don't get away with their malarkey. Just because Republicans do want their own guy factchecked, they love it when the other guy is factchecked.

    Romney may be fast and loose with his "facts" but he sure knows how to close the deal.