Conservative media critics remain clueless as to how journalism actually works
November 14, 2009 12:23 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
The latest example is the fact that right-wing bloggers are mocking an AP story which fact-checked Sarah Palin's new book. Why the mockery? Because the AP item was compiled by 11 staffers.
Mark Steyn at NRO claims the AP's use of resources is a perfect example why "American newspapers are dying."
Writes Steyn:
Wow. That's ten "AP writers" plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That's 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to "fact-check" Sarah Palin's new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That's 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
Steyn either doesn't understand how newsrooms work or he's playing dumb. (I'm going with the former.)
Why did the AP uses so many writers to fact-check Palin's book? Simple, Going Rogue hasn't been officially released yet and advance copies of the book were not sent out to journalists, which means reporters weren't able to fact-check it ahead of time. And now that the book has (sadly) become a big news item, the AP wanted, as quickly as possible, try to fact-check the book. What's the best way to do that? You basically assign one chapter to each reporter and have them go to work. Then, in a very short amount of time, you're able to fact-check the entire book, rather than asking one person to take on that large task.
But Steyn, apparently unaware of how newsrooms work, is astonished that the AP would use so many writers on the Palin article.
Also telling is the fact that Steyn mocks the AP for only finding six errors, or "1.833333" per-writer. That's an interesting twist on logic. Is Steyn suggesting the AP should have known before reading the book how many errors it would find? Is conservative Steyn amazed the AP didn't find more errors in the Palin book? And if so, what does that say about Palin's standing?
The AP didn't assign 11 people to speed read and fact-check Palin's book because it thought it would find four dozen errors, or because it thought it would find just three errors. The AP assigned a team to speed read and fact-check Palin's book not knowing how many errors it would find, but wanted to find out the answer. i.e. It wanted to undertake a journalistic endeavor.
Is that so hard for Steyn to figure out?
What other numerical thing are they going to get crazy about?
So is the fact, Eric, that you entire homepage is Palin evident of the SAD truth that the book is a big story. Or is it evidence of the corrupt, lying left being in love with the politics or personal destruction? I'll go with the latter!
"Why did the AP uses so many writers to fact-check Palin's book?"
Nice verb tense disagreement there Eric. AP could have assigned one of the 11 to SPELL-check your work.
Who proofread your grammar?
And the rightwing liars take advantage of that lack of knowledge.
It's nothing new; fudging numbers is one of the keystone traits of the far right. "2,000,000 people at D.C. Protest" says it plainly enough. And let's not forget the tiny majority that G.W. was "reelected" by in 2004--to the right-wingers, it meant a mandate!
Facts have a liberal bias, and so does real math.
Might want to correct that, Eric, you naughty boy.
This is a very good example of the type of thinking the right wing media appeals to. I'm guessing that most people were not surprised by Boehlert's analysis, it's stating the obvious.
To the audience that Steyn is courting, this is an example of overkill, and persecution of Sarah of the North.
You're probably close in thinking that there are only six assertions of fact. Contrary to Boss Hogg's praising of the book as full of "substantive policy", I wouldn't be shocked to find that it's five chapters of feel-good platitudes and empty-headed babbling, if her past interviews and speeches are any clue.
Maybe I should pick up a copy when it gets down to a dollar and see for myself. I'll need to wait a week or two.
Eleven writers to find that what they call errors mostly agreee with what Palin said.
For example, the first "error" was about being frugal with hotel rooms with Palin saying she stayed in inexpensive hotels "most of the time." What did AP find? One instance where she stayed at an expensive hotel in NYC. So your argument is that one qualifies as "often?"
Speaking of one, would you hold The One to the same factual standards?
Begin quotation:
PALIN: Says Obama has admitted that the climate change policy he seeks will cause people's electricity bills to "skyrocket."
THE FACTS: She correctly quotes a comment attributed to Obama in January 2008, when he told San Francisco Chronicle editors that under his cap-and-trade climate proposal, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" as utilities are forced to retrofit coal burning power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Obama has argued since then that climate legislation can blunt the cost to consumers. Democratic legislation now before Congress calls for a variety of measures aimed at mitigating consumer costs. Several studies predict average household costs probably would be $100 to $145 a year.
End Quotation.
These fact-checkers are a fraud. If Obama said, as the fact-checkers admit, that "the climate change policy will cause people's electricity bills to 'skyrocket'" then Palin's statement is accurate. The fact that Obama made the statement is important and indicates his attitude which is a willingness, maybe even pride, in sticking it to coal producers and users.
The so-called "fact-checkers" attempt to rebut Palin by changing the topic to legislation. Did Obama submit that legislation? If not, then the "fact-checkers" remark is irrelevant to Palin's claim. Even if Obama submitted the legislation then the "fact-checckers" overlook the political importance of the ATTITUDE expressed in his earlier remark to the "San Francisco Chronicle editors that under his cap-and-trade climate proposal, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."'
These so-called "fact-checkers" stand refuted and trivially so. They are just more Left-Wing, lying trash.
Besides, misinformation is misinformation.
- Interesting comment. Could you please supply the facts you used to support this statement.
The propagandists have gotten a little better at the CYA moves since more people started keeping an eye on them.
Obviously Palin heeded your advice when she wrote her "opinions" in her book.
That would be the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!
Should be 0,545 errors per writer, if 11 of them find 6 errors. Still curious as to what those errors are though...
This snarky post by Mr. Boehlert just reinforces Steyn's imagery of a dozen bed-wetting, hand wringing and dying for a "gotcha moment" lefty "journalists" at the AP poring over Palin's book salivating over being the one who finds a whopper.
Don't give me this pragmatic allocation of resources to expedite the fact check nonsense. Everyone at AP and at Media Matters knows that the fact checking eagerness and speed of its completion is unique to the Palin book.
The fact that Media Matters has already fact checked Steyn's comments about AP's fact checking of the book is comical to the average person and the blind here can't see how ridiculous it appears,
Why is it "the politics of personal destruction" to point out Palin's lies?
Fox News and their fans might learn that one day!!