Washington Post Fact Checking

I have mixed views about the proliferation of "fact checkers" as a specialty in many newspapers. I am of the view that reporters themselves should verify the truth of assertions made by interviewees, rather than "he-said, she-said" reports equating two sides. For one thing, there are often if not usually more than two sides to any controversy.

On balance, it is better to have fact checking than not. Still, it is not clear that we must trust the objectivity of the "fact checkers" themselves. Who checks the "fact checkers."

I have been particularly disappointed in the Washington Post "fact checker," Glenn Kessler. Particularly in the area of the national economy, he has from time to time awarded numerous "pinocchios" to statements that were actually true.

Today Kessler takes on Senator John McCain's comments about UN Ambassador Susan Rice's comments on "Face The Nation" on September 16 concerning the Benghazi raid. Kessler reviews the statement and makes it absolutely clear that John McCain completely misrepresents her comments and the context of them. In short, McCain's attack on Rice is a lie.

Kessler awards McCain two pinocchios.

Here is Kessler's scale:

"The Pinocchio Test

Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.

One Pinocchio

Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers."

Reasonable people can differ as to whether Kessler's own fact checking justifies four pinocchios  or only three. But two? No way!