Fact-Checking Resources for Poli Threads by Noocyte

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fact-Checking Resources for Poli Threads

POSTED BY: NOOCYTE
UPDATED: Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3425
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, August 29, 2004 9:45 PM

Hi, gang! I posted this on the OB, but thought I'd spread the wealth to my FFF peeps ("peeps?!").

Note: this is NOT a 'poli thread' as such, since I have very deliberately decided not to participate in such threads (I am somewhat "political," though; I *do* vote, and I have been making it my personal business over the last few months to try and chart a course between the Scylla and Kharybdis of partisan rhetoric and obfuscation on *both* sides of the aisle [part of my journey has been to be astonished by how much I have found and how corrosive it can be!]...just establishing a bit of thread cred here).

The purpose of this thread is to consolidate a list of resources which participants in such discussions can use to check the facts in their own and each other's arguments. I mean to get the ball rolling with a couple of my own, but others are invited and encouraged to include more as they find them. Hopefully this can help to keep us all honest, humble, civil, and learning as we discuss Important Things.

The only (unenforceable, honor-based) "ground rules" are that sites and resources which are listed *not* slant sharply in any given partisan direction (gentle slopes can hardly be avoided, but hopefully these will cancel out as resources accumulate). A strong hint that you have such a site is that it debunks the claims and reveals the warts of *all* sides of a given debate (e.g., it will point out the fallacies in a Kerry ad in one entry, and of a Bush ad in the next, etc). Just by way of calibration, a "fairly even-handed, but generally conservative/progressive/environmentalist/goose-juggling-advocating" site would be EXcluded from this list (though it might be cool to set up separate threads for such).

Rolling the ball:

http://www.factcheck.org/default.aspx
"Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation."

http://www.snopes.com/
A handy site for checking on a very wide variety of "urban myths," ranging from virus warnings to political anecdotes and attributions. Best of all, they show their work, list their sources, and enable us to reproduce their research and draw our own conclusions.

www.spinsanity.org
"Spinsanity was founded in April 2001 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan, three recent college graduates who were distressed at the growing dominance of spin in American politics and determined to do something about it. The trio started Spinsanity as a nonpartisan watchdog dedicated to unspinning misleading claims from politicians, pundits and the press."

Some sites for more specifically targeted info-gathering about our government:

http://opengov.media.mit.edu/
"Mission:

To empower citizens by providing a single, comprehensive, easy-to-use repository of information on individuals, organizations, and corporations related to the government of the United States of America.

To allow citizens to submit intelligence about government-related issues, while maintaining their anonymity. To allow members of the government a chance to participate in the process."

www.opensecrets.org
" The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy. The Center conducts computer-based research on campaign finance issues for the news media, academics, activists, and the public at large. The Center’s work is aimed at creating a more educated voter, an involved citizenry, and a more responsive government.

Support for the Center comes from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses or labor unions..."

www.vote-smart.org
"What We Do:
A knowledgeable electorate is the strongest component of a functioning democracy. Information about elected officials and candidates is crucial to maintaining the defense of one's rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution. In that spirit, Project Vote Smart (PVS) provides a comprehensive database about thousands of candidates and elected officials for President, Congress, Governors and State Legislators. Less detailed information is available at the county and local level for each state..."

I do hope this is helpful and not too presumptuous. I would very much welcome additions of sites that others use for their own "sanity checks" (and indeed, would welcome any reservations which others may have about the objectivity [recognizing that such is an aspirational goal at best in this complex 'verse or ours] of the sites which I've listed).

Keep flyin' (and take great care in hiring your navigators!)!

ADDITIONS:
http://www.brook.edu/

The Brookings Institute is a Centrist Think Tank, whose site is replete with all manner of balanced-seeming articles on a vast swath of issues relating to domestic and foreign policy. I've bookmarked it under my "Debunking/Fact-Checking" folder, toward the top of the "speed-dial." I strongly recommend it.

Speaking of Think Tanks, I've hit the jackpot on these:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0203/think_tanks.html

This page lists a number of these Institutes, as well as their political orientations, and much other data. Some have direct links to the Tanks' home pages, but the others can just be Googled. I plan to spend a LOT of time mining these for info and analysis.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science/political_science/public_policy/in
stitutes/

I actually hesitated before adding this one, since it is a mite overwhelming. It is a HUGE list of Think Tanks and other such Institutes. I decided to include it, since there may be intrepid souls who want to slog through it. Alas, it does not consistently include info on the political orientations of the organizations, but such can be found by looking at the "about" info on each one, and/or Googling it to find info on where each one slants. Have at it, Browncoats; these Think tanks have been sources of some really enlightening analyses of issues, policies, etc.

http://www.campaigndesk.org/

I heard about this site today on NPR (is there a 12-step program for NPR listening? I need help!). It's a site run by the Columbia Journalism Review, and its mission is to deconstruct and fact-check and debunk and critique not the messages of the parties and candidates themselves, but the "coverage" and "analysis" by the media on those messages. It is non-partisan and at times brutal (occasionally hilarious) in its scrutiny of the various print and electronic media. In my endeavor to burrow to the bottom of the spin, it has become one of my new Best Friends, rising to the top of the food chain to sit comfortably next to factcheck.org (NOT dot-com, Mr. Cheney!) and spninsanity.org.

As the campaigns shift into nitrous-burning, flame-belching supercharged overdrive, expect the spin to leave tread marks all over the truth in the weeks to come. Now more than ever, it is time to set aside our screeds, hop down off our Platforms, and mine the mountains of felgercarb for those elusive nuggets of fact. As the valiant people of Afghanistan take their first faltering, land-mine-menaced steps toward Democracy, the least we can do to honor their bold experiment is to take VERY SERIOUSLY the responsibilities incumbent on us by virtue of our OWN Republic. Don't let the candidates or their handlers or the media or your neighbors tell you how to deploy your vote. DIG, dear fellow Browncoats!!

Don't get Spun by either side!!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 1:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Thanks for a valuable public service. Sure to be of use when the B.S. gauge overloads and gives up in a burst of smoke.

BTW, Like your sig line. My (one person) racing effort is "Team Redundant Racing Team".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 3:18 AM

SGTGUMP

Cool, thanks. Now I have even more stuff to look at at work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 7:17 AM

NOOCYTE

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Thanks for a valuable public service. Sure to be of use when the B.S. gauge overloads and gives up in a burst of smoke.

BTW, Like your sig line. My (one person) racing effort is "Team Redundant Racing Team".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

You're welcome! It is actually in response to a poli email thread I'm engaged in with an old friend (encyclopaedic messages, with average two-week turnaround time!) that I really began to dig to an unprecedented level of depth into things on the political front. What I've found has filled me with dismay and a touch of embarassment at the wildly exaggerated positions I'd ingested whole from the progressive/liberal sources from which I'd been cherry-picking. The strident screeds I'd been finding there now seem every bit as offensive --in the cold light of objective analysis-- as those which I'd been blasting from the [neo]conservative sources.

It's one thing to hear folks like Nader saying that there is little difference between the two parties (note: he overstates his case, and there are important differences, and he is siphoning votes from the Democrats...even if he is also performing a potentially valuable service--or would be if reporting in the mainstream media were the least bit balanced--by reminding people that they have choices beyond those which are packaged for them by those who can't or won't move beyond simplistic, binary thinking). It's quite another to SEE for yourself just how decontextualized and twisted and spun are the trickles of heavily editorialized "news" which reach us from the big outlets...let alone the partisan sources!

When my friend told me that he was voting for Bush, my initial reaction was scarcely distinguishable from what it would have been had he told me that he was opening a free-lance puppy-grinding franchise. In retrospect, it's a little embarassing, and I'm now in the ungainly position of having to eat crow (metaphorically, with all due respect to the crow community). I'm still not matching his vote....but my reasons have narrowed from a Grand And Global Ideological Crusade to block Bush's...um...Grand and Global Ideological Crusade---> to a deliberately-reasoned (and still-evolving) analysis of key issues on which the candidates truly differ, identifying the show-stoppers (for me), and acting accordingly. It's a lot easier on my stomach this way, and it's an experience I recommend (including, believe it or not the crow part; it's a little gamey, and repeats like a howitzer, but in the end it's quite nourishing).

I was watching a CNN special on Bush last night, and someone (Ted Kennedy?) said that, "in the old days," progressives and conservatives would argue and disagree on issues, then go out for a drink afterward. Now, they tend to actively dislike each other. I see this as a loss. I would very much like to see this country move back (to the extent that it was ever truly there!) toward a climate in which people of good conscience can earnestly disagree on issues, discuss them in a reasoned manner which informs all, and ultimately act (and leave spite-free space for others to act) on their principles. The kinds of resources which I've tried to collect on this thread are just the sorts of things which make this possible. Now, if only the major news outlets would look up from their mad scramble for red meat long enough to see the damage they're doing, they might veer off of the sweeping, impressionistic generalizations and obfuscations which make it so difficult for people to inform the opinions they argue, and so serve a crucial purpose for a thriving republic. Don't worry; I'm not holding my breath.

Still, if I can have any part in increasing the number of people of all parties who stare, aghast, at the torrent of fei-yu bombarding them from the news, and give them a place or twelve to go when that "B.S. meter" starts to twitch, then I can sleep a little easier. And it's nice to know that, in the cold light of day, we Browncoats have far fewer things about which to yell at each other than we'd thought (even Adam

). And that's always nice!

Keep flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 7:46 PM

NOOCYTE

No, not (just) a gratuitous bump of my own thread. Just thought some of you might want to know that I've added another site to the list.

Just look at the end of my original post for the new link.

Keep flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 10:10 AM

NOOCYTE

This, however, is a gratuitous bump,

as the rhetoric starts to mount in both campaigns. I check these sites pretty much every time a new campaign ad hits the air. I think you'll all be amazed an appalled at how much smoke gets blown by both sides (not to mention Nader...).

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 10:04 AM

NERVOUSPETE

I bump your thread. For you are a voice of wisdom. Much like Roger Livesly in my fave film, 'A Matter of Life and Death', only no one here has probably seen that beautiful Archers Powell and Pressburger film starring David Niven, so my loss.

Anyway, overhere in the UK we passionately disagree in politics, and then go and have a pint with each other. Well, usually. We're at a bit of a loss why you are so violently hateful of eachother at the moment over there, though I suspect it is the introduction of sickening buzz-words like 'Bleeding heart liberal' and 'Flip-flopper' and 'Neocon' and 'Rabid Republican' and 'Man-Mental' or whatever.

How handy to dismiss an opposing view with a nickname, eh? It's all scarily like Orwell's '1984' where people start screaming at Goldstein as he tries to speak on screen. Be it Democrats drowning out Republicans or the other way round.

The only way you can have mature politics is by having decent education is schools regarding different political beliefs and the different cultures and histories of the nations of the world. Then follow it by an impartial media (the current one is too Republican slanted (Murdoch! *Cough*) for comfort over there, the celebrities who endorse the Democrat cause on TV have difficulty stringing coherent sentences together)

What happened to proper debates between politicians who respected their opposite number, eh? And authors and reporters who did not dumb down for people.

You fool, Michael Moore. You cretin, Rush Limbaugh.

Anyway, praise be to Noocyte again!

Pete

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 10:20 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by NervousPete:

Anyway, overhere in the UK we passionately disagree in politics, and then go and have a pint with each other. Well, usually. We're at a bit of a loss why you are so violently hateful of eachother at the moment over there, though I suspect it is the introduction of sickening buzz-words like 'Bleeding heart liberal' and 'Flip-flopper' and 'Neocon' and 'Rabid Republican' and 'Man-Mental' or whatever.

Normally thats where many of us Americans start our political convos..over a pint (or in my case a Pitcher of pure Margaritas *homer Simpson drooling sound), It very rarely ever becomes violent. The media just hypes everyone up. Though I do believe I recently had to put my Poet for Uncle-in-law in a trash can, for saying Howard Dean was God. Unfortunately when we use a text format, some things will come across ill intentioned (sometimes it is), more then not.

Pro-America, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Freedom, Pro-Capitalism. Anti-Terrorist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Dumbass

"Let Freedom Reign, death to Islamafascism"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 7:25 PM

NOOCYTE

NERVOUSPETE wrote:

Quote:
I bump your thread. For you are a voice of wisdom.

Shucks, 'Pete! I am authentically moved!

Still, I feel compelled to suggest that your charge of Wisdom may be premature. After all, it was scant weeks ago that I thought Michael Moore was the bee's knees for his relentless and courageous assault on the Evil Bush Cartel! I'd been as successfully spun as most.

At best, I am painfully wiping years' worth of accumulated crud off of eyes much-belatedly opened, whilst endeavoring to share the crud-wiping implements with as many others as I can.

But still, thanks, dude!!

Right now, I'm reading through a blog site which appears to focus on deconstructing the various tricks which the media use to squeeze ratings-grabbing juice out of stories which might otherwise be tediously balanced and informative (quoting out of context, burying the lead, etc.). If it lives up to the standards I've set for this thread, I'll post it, since it might help to make us more informed consumers of the media morass. A Very Important Goal as we in the US move into our "Two Months Hate" till Election Day!

Keep flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 8, 2004 3:04 PM

NOOCYTE

EDITED to put the message which used to be here, up where it belongs, at the end of my original post.

Oops.

Have at it, gentlefolks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 8, 2004 4:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a bump.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 9, 2004 10:40 AM

NOOCYTE

Thanks for the bump, Rue. Bumping in myself, to let folks know that some really good stuff is afoot on www.factcheck.org on the last "debate."

The more I read about these misrepresentations by both sides, only to hear them repeated, again and again and again in various fora, the more I feel the need to schedule a massage to counteract the effects of all this wincing.

As a general aside, am I the only one who's noticed more fact-checking segments on the mainstream news? Could this reflect an increasing demand for this kind of objective analysis? Is it possible that the supercharged spin machines have sowed the seeds of their own undoing by energizing the electorate and whetting our appetite for information on the one hand, and frustrating us with the pitiful quality of that information on the other? This would be an amusing irony and a healthy development for our democracy. We shall see...

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:14 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't remember fact-checking to be as prominent in the last election cycle. This time around it seems very prominent on-line, and it is the first item I go to.
As an aside, I take great pains to read original documents (Energy Commission report, Senate report, 9/11 Commission etc. The Duefler report is a tome, though.) I've done this because the media, despite their archives and paid research departments and fact-checkers, have been shamefully, woefully inadequate. So I am grateful that there are organizations doing the leg work for me.
As to misrepresentations being repeated (and this is not an excuse) I was wondering how someone could 'correct' one once it's out there.
In his presidency, Bush simply goes ahead with new 'facts' as if the old ones were never uttered. And given the media's laxity, it was never brought up as an issue.
But in this campaign, with both sides hammering the other on what was said, it would be difficult to change a position without getting nailed by the other side. AHA! Gotcha! So I think they get repeated because there is no exit.
Tactically, if I were to try to deal with it, I would find a way to avoid citing that particular fact while still pursuing the issue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE