In politics, voters don’t expect candidates to agree on priorities or policies or past decisions. That’s the beauty of our system. These days, though, no one seems to be able to agree on the facts.
And that’s a problem.
Our effort is part of a growing network of state-based PolitiFact operations, each following the same meticulous, unflinching approach to holding an ever-widening legion of candidates, handlers, political parties and outside groups accountable for what they say.
This is a different kind of journalism. It doesn’t just lay out one side of the story and then another with a you-decide shrug. It comes to a conclusion. It involves calling balls and strikes.
Put simply: Some statements are true. Some are not. Some are kinda true. Some are just plain outlandish.
And voters need to know how they all stack up.
That makes this an important kind of journalism. The mission is one of public service. The approach is that of watchdog reporting. (Source: JSOnline)
What do you think of this new venture? Good or bad idea? Can they be unbiased in coverage?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Nieman: Exploring a niche for non-niche fact-checking (blogs.journalism.co.uk)
- Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth (newsbusters.org)
- As ‘Truth-O-Meter’ Spreads, Politicians Wince (npr.org)