NewsBusters Podcast: Revealing the 'Fact-Checking Frauds' Playbook

On “International Fact Checking Day,” we discuss how PolitiFact can’t find any Democrats saying false things with Matthew Hoy, author of the new book Fact-Checking Frauds: How Fact-Checkers Distract, Deceive, and Distort Our Politics. What tactics do they use? There’s obvious selection bias — in targets, in fact claims, and in expert testimony.

Managing Editor Curtis Houck joined the show to discuss how “fact checkers” are journalists and it shouldn’t be seen as hostile to journalism or facts to criticize them and their tactics. Hoy worked for 15 years as a newspaper journalist, so he knows how the process works. What we’ve seen is liberal journalists using “fact checking” as another way of undermining conservatives and Republicans in their appeal to voters. 

When PolitiFact couldn’t find a single statement made by the Democrats anywhere that they would feel need to be described as “Mostly False” or in stronger terms, it suggests favoritism. It’s one thing to believe that Donald Trump is uniquely troubling in his untruths and exaggerations. It’s another to believe it’s disreputable “false balance” to call out any falsehoods among Trump’s opponents. 

We’ve seen signs of decline among the “fact checkers.” The Washington Post didn’t replace their fact chieftain Glenn Kessler when he took a buyout. But their bias was glaringly obvious when Kessler compiled a database of more than 30,000 “false or misleading” statements from Trump, and then canceled any presidential database when Biden was elected. 

CNN’s Daniel Dale makes no attempt to avoid the impression that he’s only been hired to fact-check Trump, and pretty much nothing else. That’s certainly true when he appears on television for CNN. Snopes.com has a problem obsessing over satire, as if making jokes is the worst kind of misinformation. 

Overall, these “fact checkers” have remarkable blind spots — “Jim Crow 2.0” is considered fair comment about the Republicans. Calling Trump a “fascist” or a “dictator” is acceptable discourse, but if you call a Democrat a “socialist,” that can be tagged as “Pants On Fire.” Republicans can never claim the Democrats support abortion up until birth — no restrictions are desirable — but instead of proving their claim false (it’s not), they claim that late-term abortions are “rare,” as if that’s a factual argument. 

Enjoy the show below, or wherever you consumer your podcasts.