Politifact Website Analysis
Nine years ago, three confused voters started a website aimed at separating the fact from the fiction in global politics. Today, three and a half million confused voters trust that very site to provide clarification after debates that leave more questions than answers. That website was Politifact and its executive director, Aaron Sharockman spoke to the power of truth in an increasingly volatile political climate, Wednesday in the Fred W. Smith Forum. He told the audience of 40 students and faculty members that while he believes people have never voted solely for the most honest politician, it doesn’t mean that facts lack weight with those casting a ballot. “Readers really care about this quest for truth and the advancement of truth,” said Sharockman. The truth Politifact aims for is often lost in a disparity between what people want and what media delivers. “They want
…show more content…
us to be the experts for them,” said Sharockman.
Not only do citizens crave more coverage of policy, argued Sharockman, but once lawmakers know they are being monitored, they are less likely to spout falsehoods. “Fact checking works at any level,” Sharockman said. “Our number one goal is that no one is off-limits.”
That motto has also extended to state governments. Politifact works with 18 states, 10 of which were launched in the last year. The site also expanded in order to fact check TV and radio pundits through PunditFact, which launched in 2013.
“The people that get paid the most money are often the biggest liars,” Sharockman said.
Despite the service PolitiFact provides, for MU sophomore Channing Phillips, the amount of false information circulating is utterly overwhelming. “Everything you hear, all of the articles you read, you assume are probably true,” Phillips said. “But, it turns out to be half or completely false.”
Sharockman made the case that the vast amount of misinformation voters young and old are exposed to is the reason why Politifact is so vital in modern society. In the “rapid spread of information” that emerged since the site launched in 2007 during the Obama-McCain race, any voter’s Facebook feed is full of misinformation, something Sharockman hopes Politifact can work with the company to eradicate.
Sharockman also broke down how Politifact rates degree of truthfulness for each statement. The “fact” in question is researched, conferred upon by a board of three staff members, and then categorized on a scale of true to half false to pants on fire, the ultimate wasteland for words that fall from lips and die at
feet.
For MU student Rhyezin Larimer, 19, the level of falseness a claim holds is of the utmost importance when casting his vote. “Donald Trump may have a lot of true claims, but he also has a lot of pants-on-fire ones. But what about a politician who doesn’t make as many claims as him,” said Larimer. “I’m looking at how many lies a candidate is saying, but also to what degree each claim is wrong.”
Sharockman knew of the heightened awareness the public has had for Politifact during the campaign season and discussed the measures its staff is taking. The staff of 10 writes 150 articles a month and live tweets during every debate, including this week’s Vice Presidential edition. Politifact’s vast database of 13,000 previous claims allowed the staff to cross reference and report 26 fact checks in real time. Sharockman even dismantled recent debate claims noting that Trump was the “worst fact checked on record” and that Clinton was “technically sound, but highly misleading.”
While the art of fact-checking has its dissenters, including Donald Trump himself on occasion, the team at Politifact is anything but unmotivated. In the future, Sharockman noted that Politifact is investigating into not only claims, but promises made by presidential candidates. So, if Trump fails to build a wall or Clinton is unable to secure debt free public college, Politifact will be on the case. In fact, many politicians have begun shaping their political narrative based on potential damage Politifact could cause. Sharockman said that some campaign managers reach out to Politifact and ask, “If we said this, what would you rate it?” Sharockman’s response? “Say it and you’ll find out.”
When Politifact was a 3-person organization in 2007, many politicians had no desire to cooperate with it. But today, staffers like Aaron Sharockman announce his or her affiliation proudly.
“If a politician doesn’t know who we are, then I’d be scared for them,” said Sharockman.
us to be the experts for them,” said Sharockman.
Not only do citizens crave more coverage of policy, argued Sharockman, but once lawmakers know they are being monitored, they are less likely to spout falsehoods. “Fact checking works at any level,” Sharockman said. “Our number one goal is that no one is off-limits.”
That motto has also extended to state governments. Politifact works with 18 states, 10 of which were launched in the last year. The site also expanded in order to fact check TV and radio pundits through PunditFact, which launched in 2013.
“The people that get paid the most money are often the biggest liars,” Sharockman said.
Despite the service PolitiFact provides, for MU sophomore Channing Phillips, the amount of false information circulating is utterly overwhelming. “Everything you hear, all of the articles you read, you assume are probably true,” Phillips said. “But, it turns out to be half or completely false.”
Sharockman made the case that the vast amount of misinformation voters young and old are exposed to is the reason why Politifact is so vital in modern society. In the “rapid spread of information” that emerged since the site launched in 2007 during the Obama-McCain race, any voter’s Facebook feed is full of misinformation, something Sharockman hopes Politifact can work with the company to eradicate.
Sharockman also broke down how Politifact rates degree of truthfulness for each statement. The “fact” in question is researched, conferred upon by a board of three staff members, and then categorized on a scale of true to half false to pants on fire, the ultimate wasteland for words that fall from lips and die at
feet.
For MU student Rhyezin Larimer, 19, the level of falseness a claim holds is of the utmost importance when casting his vote. “Donald Trump may have a lot of true claims, but he also has a lot of pants-on-fire ones. But what about a politician who doesn’t make as many claims as him,” said Larimer. “I’m looking at how many lies a candidate is saying, but also to what degree each claim is wrong.”
Sharockman knew of the heightened awareness the public has had for Politifact during the campaign season and discussed the measures its staff is taking. The staff of 10 writes 150 articles a month and live tweets during every debate, including this week’s Vice Presidential edition. Politifact’s vast database of 13,000 previous claims allowed the staff to cross reference and report 26 fact checks in real time. Sharockman even dismantled recent debate claims noting that Trump was the “worst fact checked on record” and that Clinton was “technically sound, but highly misleading.”
While the art of fact-checking has its dissenters, including Donald Trump himself on occasion, the team at Politifact is anything but unmotivated. In the future, Sharockman noted that Politifact is investigating into not only claims, but promises made by presidential candidates. So, if Trump fails to build a wall or Clinton is unable to secure debt free public college, Politifact will be on the case. In fact, many politicians have begun shaping their political narrative based on potential damage Politifact could cause. Sharockman said that some campaign managers reach out to Politifact and ask, “If we said this, what would you rate it?” Sharockman’s response? “Say it and you’ll find out.”
When Politifact was a 3-person organization in 2007, many politicians had no desire to cooperate with it. But today, staffers like Aaron Sharockman announce his or her affiliation proudly.
“If a politician doesn’t know who we are, then I’d be scared for them,” said Sharockman.