Fact-checking gets fact-checked
Fact-checking became a hot topic after Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Is fact-checking a trojan horse for left-wing partisans? Is it something members of the news media should do reflexively and in-person? And who will fact-check the fact-checkers of the fact-checkers?
• Emily Bell: "The existence of a 'fact-checking movement' which runs parallel to, but is not part of, the press shows how disjointed the process of informing the public has become." (Instant grammar-check! The nonrestrictive which in that sentence should be replaced with the restrictive that.)
• Glenn Kessler: Paul Ryan's speech at the RNC wasn't a watershed moment in post-truth politics, it was "par for the course" for a political convention.
• Michael Cooper's counterpoint: "But recent events — from the misleading statements in convention speeches to television advertisements repeating widely debunked claims — have raised new questions about whether the political culture still holds any penalty for falsehood."
• Ben Smith's counter-counterpoint: "...at its heart, this is a rare campaign being conducted in the daylight on the highest stakes in American government, the giant domestic programs most Americans wind up using and the taxes that pay for them."
• Ezra Klein: "Quite simply, the Romney campaign isn’t adhering to the minimum standards required for a real policy conversation. ... you can look fair, or you can be fair, but you can’t be both."
• Irin Carmon: "Cynical postmodernism," beat-maintenance are why reporters don't fact-check.