The Democratic National Convention in Chicago became an unexpected stage for a media self-examination, as speculation about a surprise guest spiraled into a broader debate about the role and efficacy of fact-checking. Social media buzzed with names from Beyoncé to Mitt Romney, even outlandish suggestions like El Chapo, highlighting the media’s susceptibility to rumor and the audience’s appetite for the sensational. While serious journalists dissected the Beyoncé buzz, the eventual anticlimactic reveal – no surprise guest at all – underscored a week where the very act of verifying truth was intensely scrutinized. This intense focus on fact-checking, triggered by events at the DNC, has reignited a crucial conversation: in an age defined by political polarization and rampant misinformation, how can journalism evolve and unburden itself from practices that may no longer serve the public effectively? This question echoes the sentiment expressed later, a need to be unburdened by what has been origin, suggesting a necessary departure from past approaches to meet the challenges of the present.
The week commenced with a dispute over President Biden’s remarks concerning Donald Trump’s potential refusal to accept election results. A Washington Post report contested Biden’s claim, triggering a cascade of critiques aimed at various media outlets. PolitiFact faced backlash for its assessment of Trump’s Medicare stance, and the New York Times drew criticism for fact-checking what appeared to be a self-evident joke. These instances weren’t isolated; they fueled a larger discussion about the very nature of fact-checking in contemporary journalism.
Michael Scherer from the Post defended the necessity of meticulous fact-checking, emphasizing the importance of detail even when it challenges ideological echo chambers. However, voices like Chris Lehmann at The Nation argued that real-time fact-checking represents “the lowest form of journalism.” Lehmann suggested that journalists positioning themselves as arbiters of empirical truth are ill-equipped for the Trump era, where fact-checking can feel inconsequential against a backdrop of blatant disregard for truth. Dan Froomkin, a media critic, echoed this sentiment, arguing that fact-checking, in its current practice, causes more harm than good by obscuring the stark differences in truthfulness between political parties under a guise of impartiality.
This debate isn’t new. Even during Trump’s presidency, while fact-checking was often lauded, concerns about its focus on minor details at the expense of broader context were raised, as Ana Marie Cox noted in CJR in 2019. Earlier this year, CJR revisited this issue, suggesting that fact-checking’s prominence had waned, possibly to the detriment of informed public discourse. However, the DNC week brought fact-checking back into the spotlight, prompting a fresh examination of its strengths and weaknesses.
While acknowledging the valid criticisms, it’s crucial to recognize the continued importance of verifying facts. Details do matter, and holding all political actors accountable for the accuracy of their statements remains a core journalistic function. The issue isn’t fact-checking itself, but rather the potential for its misapplication and overemphasis on isolated claims, sometimes missing the larger, more critical narratives. Critics of the week’s fact-checking rightly pointed out instances where context was ignored or nuance was lost. The fact-check of Biden’s remarks on Trump, for example, arguably missed the crucial context of Trump’s actions leading up to January 6th. Similarly, policing jokes trivializes the real issues at stake.
The format of live fact-checking can indeed encourage a fragmented approach, focusing on individual statements rather than overarching patterns of behavior or systemic issues. However, the failures observed during the DNC week weren’t inherent flaws in the format itself, but rather reflections of broader shortcomings within political journalism. A more robust and effective approach requires journalists to move beyond isolated fact-checks and integrate verification with deeper contextual analysis and a more comprehensive understanding of political actors and their agendas.
Trump’s pervasive dishonesty is central to this discussion. He is not just another politician occasionally bending the truth; his administration and rhetoric have been characterized by a systematic disregard for facts. While major media outlets have improved in directly addressing Trump’s anti-democratic actions, this coverage often remains separate from routine political reporting, which sometimes normalizes his candidacy. This compartmentalization prevents audiences from fully grasping the exceptional nature of the challenges posed by Trump’s political approach.
The speculation surrounding a surprise guest at the DNC, while ultimately inconsequential, serves as a microcosm of a broader media tendency to chase novelty and the unknown. This inclination, rather than any specific format like live fact-checking, can lead to coverage that feels, in Kamala Harris’s words, “unburdened by what has been.” If this phrase implies a detachment from the past, perhaps a more constructive interpretation in this context is the need for journalism to unburden itself from outdated practices and superficial modes of engagement. While Harris may be shifting her messaging, the underlying threat to democratic norms remains. The focus should not be solely on the “surprise” but on the consistent, critical issues that demand sustained and in-depth journalistic attention.
The real story isn’t the fleeting rumor, but the persistent realities – the ongoing debates about the integrity of elections, the spread of misinformation, and the challenges to democratic institutions. Journalism, to be truly effective, must unburden itself from the lure of the sensational and refocus on providing comprehensive, contextualized, and unflinching coverage of these fundamental issues. This requires not abandoning fact-checking, but embedding it within a broader, more insightful, and forward-thinking journalistic practice.
The Media Today Newsletter Sign-up
Other notable stories:
-
Charles Bethea’s New Yorker piece delves into the “low-information voter” phenomenon, exploring the demographics and motivations of those less engaged with political news, and their disproportionate support for figures like Trump. The term, while potentially condescending, highlights a long-studied aspect of political engagement: varying levels of interest in seeking political information and its correlation with voting patterns.
-
The Onion‘s return to print in Chicago, coinciding with the DNC, marks a noteworthy experiment in satirical media. The positive early response suggests a potential appetite for a tangible, humorous take on current events, offering a “back-to-basics” approach in a digital age.
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.
