The common problem with fact-checking is a misplaced reverence for “expertise” as a substitute for hard-nosed reporting and independent evaluation. So here are a few friendly suggestions for better fact-checking: Reporters do not represent the establishment, they should be suspicious of it; politicians who seem reasonable may not be; politicians who depart from the Washington consensus may be saying something important. If you think you can even get to the truth of a complex, contentious issue with a couple of phone calls, you are kidding yourself and your readers. And don’t invent a “truth” where the truth is genuinely in dispute.

— via “How to Fix Fact-Checking”, a post on Forbes by John McQuaid. It comes in response to a recent piece by Mark Hemingway in the Weekly Standard, “Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’”.

An excerpt from the Standard piece, which had the subhead “The liberal media’s latest attempt to control the discourse”:

The media establishment has largely rallied round the self-satisfied consensus that fact checking is a noble pursuit. Nonetheless there are signs of an impending crack-up. In their rush to hop on the fact-checking bandwagon, the media appear to have given little thought to what their new obsession says about how well or poorly they perform their jobs.

It’s impossible for the media to fact check without rendering judgment on their own failures. Seeing the words “fact check” in a headline plants the idea in the reader’s mind that it’s something out of the ordinary for journalists to check facts. Shouldn’t that be an everyday part of their jobs that goes without saying? And if they aren’t normally checking facts, what exactly is it that they’re doing?

As such, fact checking frequently involves one news organization publicly accusing competing organizations of malpractice. Instead of newsroom watercooler kvetching and burying subtle digs in the eleventh paragraph, friendly fire is breaking out into the open.

SEVERAL PASSAGES in David Satter’s “Russia Incorporated” (December 17) were taken without attribution from Jonas Bernstein’s articles in the Eurasia Daily Monitor, published by the Jamestown Foundation. For instance–
Bernstein: “For now, however, Putin appears to be trying to maintain a balance between the warring factions: After Cherkesov’s article appeared in Kommersant, Putin publicly scolded him, telling Kommersant that it is ‘wrong to bring these kinds of problems to the media’ and that someone who claims a war between security agencies is going on ‘should, first of all, be spotless.’ Yet the following day, Putin created a new state committee to fight illegal drugs and named Cherkesov as its chief” (Eurasia Daily Monitor, Nov. 2, 2007).
Satter: “Putin appears to be trying to maintain a balance between the warring sides. After Cherkesov’s article appeared in Kommersant, Putin publicly criticized him, saying it is ‘wrong to bring these kinds of problems to the media.’ Yet the following day, Putin created a new state committee to fight illegal drugs and named Cherkesov as its chief.”
THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author apologize to Mr. Bernstein, to the Jamestown Foundation, and to our readers. We also commend to our readers the articles by Mr. Bernstein that served as source material: “Finansgroup: How Russia’s Siloviki Do Business,” EDM, Nov. 30, 2007; “Stanislav Belkovsky: Putin Will Leave Power Completely,” EDM, Nov. 19, 2007; and “St. Petersburg Poisonings: Part of Siloviki Factional Fight?” EDM, Nov. 2, 2007. All of these may be found at the Eurasia Daily Monitor website, www.jamestown.org/edm.

An apology is good, but the Weekly Standard doesn’t say anything about having examined Satter’s previous work for evidence of plagiarism. Did it undertake such an examination?

Thanks, Kevin!