The final day of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was rife with social media speculation. Would Beyoncé grace the stage? Perhaps Taylor Swift? Some even jokingly suggested Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, or the more outlandish figures like El Chapo or Raygun. While the latter were clearly humorous, the former were treated as serious possibilities, dissected by prominent journalists. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times dismissed the Bush rumor, and speculation largely centered on Beyoncé, especially after her song “Freedom” was linked to Kamala Harris’s campaign. CNN’s Jamie Gangel cited a source with inside knowledge, creating a will-she-won’t-she narrative. The Hill and TMZ confidently reported her appearance. Even a White House staffer’s bee emoji fueled the speculation, though she later attributed it to her child’s phone use.
Ultimately, no surprise guest appeared. Convention attendees and viewers were presented with Leon Panetta, Adam Kinzinger, and Vice President Harris herself. The Hill retracted their report, tweeting an apology quoting Beyoncé: “We gotta lay our cards down, down, down.” TMZ echoed this, admitting their error. PolitiFact dubbed the Beyoncé rumor “the DNC lie of the night,” cautioning against believing unsourced online claims.
This episode capped a week where fact-checking dominated media discourse. As DNC speakers took the stage, journalists scrutinized their statements, often facing criticism themselves for inaccuracies. It began with President Biden’s assertion about Donald Trump’s potential refusal to accept election results. A Washington Post reporter challenged this, arguing Trump hadn’t explicitly said he wouldn’t accept the results, but rather suggested the only way he could lose was through Democratic cheating. The Post faced further scrutiny, as did PolitiFact, for various fact-checks, including one regarding Trump’s stance on Medicare cuts. Even the New York Times was criticized for fact-checking what appeared to be a self-evident joke by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.
This intense focus on specific claims ignited a broader debate about the very purpose of fact-checking. Michael Scherer of the Post defended the practice, emphasizing the importance of details, even if it disrupts ideological narratives. However, others dissented. Chris Lehmann of The Nation labeled real-time fact-checking “the lowest form of journalism,” arguing that journalists acting as “above-the-fray priests of a higher empirical truth” are ill-equipped for the current political climate. He likened fact-checking to “pointing out that your mugger’s shoe is untied while you’re pinned against the wall with a knife at your throat.” Dan Froomkin, in a blog post titled “‘Fact-checking’ does a (hopefully fatal) face plant,” argued that while noble in concept, fact-checking often does more harm than good. He suggested that fact-checkers’ attempts to appear unbiased obscure the significant differences in truthfulness between political parties.
Alt: Democratic National Convention signage displayed during the event.
The debate about fact-checking is not new. During Trump’s presidency, it was often seen as crucial, though even then, some, like Ana Marie Cox in CJR in 2019, argued it focused too much on minor details, missing the larger picture. Earlier this year, this newsletter noted a potential decline in the prominence of fact-checking, suggesting this might be detrimental. This observation came after the coverage of Katie Britt’s State of the Union rebuttal, where the focus was initially on her delivery style until an independent journalist exposed inaccuracies in her claims about immigration. Despite this perceived decline, the week of the DNC saw fact-checking thrust back into the spotlight.
The various critiques of fact-checking during the DNC week have elements of validity. While the live-blog, claim-by-claim format criticized by Lehmann may have its drawbacks, journalists must still verify facts. Details are crucial, and factual accuracy should be a standard for all claims, regardless of political affiliation. However, the issue might lie in disproportionately emphasizing individual fact-checks. Ironically, the critics of these fact-checks often amplified their visibility. Those not deeply engaged online may have been largely unaware of the fact-checking controversies.
However, many criticisms of specific fact-checks were justified. The fact-check of Biden’s remarks on Trump’s election stance was particularly flawed. Regardless of Trump’s precise words, his actions leading up to January 6th and his continued rhetoric strongly suggest a potential repeat. To ignore this context is a significant oversight. Similarly, policing every joke is unnecessary and misses the point of political discourse, which often includes humor and hyperbole.
The live fact-checking format can indeed encourage a fragmented approach, isolating claims from their broader context. And, as previously argued, evaluating claims solely on a narrow definition of truth is insufficient. Yet, the failures of fact-checking during the DNC week weren’t inherent flaws in the format itself, but rather errors in judgment and execution. They reflect wider shortcomings in political journalism. There’s no inherent reason why a fact-check should be naive about Trump’s history of dishonesty or ignore crucial contextual information. Even critics of live fact-checking acknowledge its potential for effective implementation. Like any form of journalism, fact-checking can be done well or poorly.
Alt: Stack of The Onion satirical newspapers, highlighting their return to print.
While the debate on fact-checking extends beyond Trump and the DNC, he remains central to it. His consistent and pervasive dishonesty, from trivial matters to fundamental democratic processes, necessitates robust scrutiny. While individual fact-checks can sometimes miss the mark, so too can the often-compartmentalized nature of political journalism. Major news outlets have improved in their bluntness when describing Trump’s anti-democratic tendencies. However, this coverage often exists separately from reporting that implicitly treats Trump as a normal candidate in a normal election. This disconnect persists. Some pundits suggest Harris’s shift from emphasizing threats to democracy to focusing on “freedom” is a strategic move. However, highlighting Trump’s threats to democracy is crucial because they are demonstrably true, not merely because Democrats emphasize them.
The DNC surprise guest speculation, while seemingly trivial, reveals a media inclination towards chasing novelty and the unknown. This tendency, rather than any specific format like fact-checking, can lead to coverage that feels, in the words of Kamala Harris, “unburdened by what has been.” Even if Harris is subtly shifting her messaging from Biden’s stark warnings about democratic threats, the substance remains. Her DNC speech and the convention’s programming highlighted Trump’s actions on January 6th and the potential for future similar actions. Often, the most crucial elements are not the surprises, but the consistent, underlying realities that demand our attention.
Other notable stories:
-
Charles Bethea in The New Yorker explored the “low-information voter,” a demographic with relatively high Trump support. Experts note the term, while potentially condescending, describes a well-studied phenomenon: varying levels of interest in seeking political information. It’s not a measure of intelligence or solely tied to education, but these voters are less likely to seek diverse viewpoints and more inclined to trust figures they respect.
-
The Onion revived its print edition in Chicago for the DNC, marking its first print issue in over a decade. CEO Ben Collins reported the return to print has been surprisingly successful, appealing to a desire for tangible, back-to-basics media.
ICYMI: On the DNC and the Gaza story
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
Jon Allsop is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic, among other outlets. He writes CJR’s newsletter The Media Today. Find him on Twitter @Jon_Allsop.
