Fact checking and the American voter

Megan Henry | Contributing Writer

 

As predicted, this year’s election has proved explosive, with both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama struggling to maintain a lead in the polls. The resulting efforts to sway voters are perhaps most apparent in the hotly contested presidential debate performances and the media’s intense focus on fact checking the comments made during debates.

The presidential debates originally offered a way for candidates to explain their views on hot-button issues. As time has gone by, the debates have evolved into an opportunity for the exchange of verbal jabs and good old-fashioned finger-pointing, which often distract voters from the real issues at hand. Avoidance tactics and slippery half-truths are the norm in these debates, and the media has the important responsibility of reporting what is true from what is false. However, just as the debates themselves have evolved, so has media coverage of these events.

Discovering and reporting the complete truth behind statements made by politicians is one of the most basic elements of political reporting. In generations past, fact checking was a task given to experienced political commentators and featured by major news sources after the debates. However, the new style of fact-checking consists of websites, social media and smart phone apps. Media insiders and voters alike can fact-check candidates while the debates are taking place, or in the now-infamous Candy Crowley example, debate moderators can fact-check a candidate mid-answer. The major networks now have entire panels of “experts” fact-checking the debate statements, which often leads to a separate debate amongst the panelists. Fact-checking has devolved; shifting from a respectable, research-based professional skill, to a casual umbrella phrase adopted by the general population and utilized by anyone with the Internet.

The new, aggressive style of fact-checking seen in the media today is primarily the result of the 24-hour news cycle. Media professionals must maintain credibility by reporting the news as soon as it happens, or better yet while it is happening, even if that means sub-par reporting.  Journalists struggle to find newsworthy stories during slow periods and turn to opinion-based reporting, resulting in biased articles based partially on the facts and partially on opinion. This is why a comment made during a live debate between presidential candidates on the terrorist attack in Libya, an easily identifiable fact-check, can become a major news story for weeks afterwards, as the media seeks to regurgitate old news and turn it into new stories on the character or professionalism of the candidates.

While it is apparent that the American voting population has grown weary of the direction the presidential debates have taken, the ways in which they seek information is likely to remain problematic. Fact-checking has become sensationalized by the media, and good information can be hard to come by due to the unreliability of many Internet resources. Voters concerned with fact-checking the candidates must be willing to relinquish their more partisan beliefs in order to obtain factual information, which is difficult to do. Research indicates that while voters may be tired of the back-and-forth of the candidates, they will still allow their partisan beliefs to sway their opinions even when presented with reliable facts.

A conservative voter concerned with fact-checking will likely obtain their information from a conservative news network, as opposed to seeking out an unbiased source.  Similarly, a liberal voter will still dislike most of Mitt Romney’s policies regardless of how factual his statements are during the debates.

Aaron King, professor of the American Chief Executive course being taught at UNCW this semester, summed it up best.

“No matter what the facts reveal, people stick by their beliefs,” he said. “Politics are no different”.