Today's Washington Post columnist Q&A with the paper's political fact check writer, Glenn Kessler,
is as illuminating as it is depressing.
Glenn, thank you for taking my question. As much as it burns me to read your column, it's a must-read. I know that you do award Pinocchios to President Obama and some Democrats (that is not in doubt); however, it seems like you grade the GOP far more often than Dems. Of course there are going to be more GOP newsmakers spouting off in Iowa; however, that doesn't mean that Democrats have been mute in voicing some off-base stuff too. I'm not asking for a 'fairness doctrine' to somehow be put into effect; what I am saying is that there does seem to be a tilt towards your column going after Republicans- almost like at a 3-1 ratio. Also, and maybe this should be directed towards the Ombudsman, but it would be great if you would award Pinocchios to the Post's own columnists. Robinson alone would keep you in business (yes, I know columnists spout off opinions, but when they mix in falsehoods and exagerations, it's just as bad as politicians).
Now, this was in fact the very first question Kessler chose to answer. It's standard "liberal media bias!" fare, complete with "You're harder on Republicans!" and an open attack on Post columnist Eugene Robinson to boot. Kessler's answer is just as mind-numbing.
Thanks for your question. I am sensitive to the fact that this month in particular there seems to have been more posts on Republicans. In part that's because Congress has been out of session and, yes, there are lots of Republicans running for president. I really only had Obama's bus tour to work with and frankly that was thin gruel.
The best way to look at the column is over a long period of time--say six months--rather than week to week or even month by month. As the campaign heats up, the balance may be difficult to keep up, especially if the president isn't saying much. When there are two candidates--Obama and the GOP nominee--it will again be easier.
Wait. Let's stop and analyze this. Kessler explains that there are far more Republicans than Democrats running for President in 2012, so of course that 3-to-1 ratio the questioner is complaining about is going to exist. If anything, considering there's more than three GOP candidates that Kessler has been following, that perceived 3-to-1 ratio means there's a distinct
Republican bias to Kessler's fact checking forays given the assumption that all politicians lie at the same amount and are caught at the same amount by Kessler.
So, this means either the assumption is wrong and President Obama really is a consummate fibber (in which case the reader is complaining about nothing) or that Kessler's going out of his way to find things to ding Obama on in order to keep the perception of "balance".
Both Kessler's recent columns on President Obama (awarding him
One Pinocchio for a mostly true statement
twice in the last week and
even finding that he told the full truth about Joe Biden's statements that Tea Partiers were terrorists) and more importantly
Kessler's answer to the reader bear out the second scenario.
Kessler strongly implies that when the race comes down just to Obama and his nominated GOP opponent heading into the general election, he will then be more able to maintain the "balance" more easily. But that depends on how much the President says, not what he says. Which means Kessler intends to write fact checker columns about Obama even if he's mostly telling the truth. And hey, just this week Kessler wrote three columns finding that President Obama is mostly telling the truth.
Are you beginning to see the problem here? Kessler clearly feels the need to write fact check columns about Obama based not on facts, but on quantity of statements made...and he has to do this in order to cancel out the "perceived liberal bias" from large numbers of Republicans spouting crazy lies.
Yeah. Facts has a liberal bias, as Colbert said. And Glenn Kessler believes his job is to correct that bias. Odd stance for a fact checker.