All Along the Watchtower
February 6, 2019·3 comments·Media
Fact-checking journalism has become something other than what its name suggests. Major news organizations present opinion and editorial judgment as objective verification, blurring the line so completely that readers can't distinguish between what's actually false and what the reviewer simply wishes had been said differently. When the institutions tasked with watching the truth no longer acknowledge they're interpreting it, the foundational trust in information itself fractures.
• Fact-checkers have begun evaluating statements against a standard that isn't accuracy, but acceptability. Rather than asking whether a claim is true, reviewers ask whether it conforms to what they believe should have been expressed. The benchmark itself becomes subjective judgment dressed as fact-checking.
• Context has become the primary mechanism for guiding thought rather than clarifying it. Reviewers insert "necessary" information that tells readers how to weigh facts and what emotional posture to adopt toward them. The original statement may be accurate, but the framing determines the conclusion.
• Emotional language selection and curated examples function as interpretive tools. Lists are chosen for their resonance rather than their comprehensiveness. Word choice steers feeling. Readers think they're receiving information, but they're receiving a pre-packaged interpretation.
• The damage accelerates precisely because these pieces contain real fact-checking alongside interpretation. A single review can shift between genuine verification and opinion without marking the boundary. This categorical confusion erodes trust faster than consistent bias would, because readers can't locate where they're being informed versus guided.
• The central paradox is that fact-checkers have become less transparent about their role while claiming greater authority over what counts as true. When institutions responsible for credibility stop distinguishing between checking facts and determining how facts should be understood, they undermine the very thing they're meant to protect.
The Why of Epsilon Theory
- Direct access to leading narrative-tracking technology across global news.
- Deep analysis of how narratives shape markets, politics, and society.
- An active online community of independent voters, investors and thinkers.
Looking for Deeper Insights?
Unlock exclusive market intelligence, trade ideas, and member-only events tailored for investment professionals and active investors with Perscient Pro.
VISIT PRO
Comments
Thank for sharing your enlightening analysis. I’m a fan of (and contributor to) NPR and several of its affiliated local stations, but I think your analysis is spot on. I especially particularly appreciate the way in which you critical while still recognizing the value of what NPR is trying to do. Two questions (and a suggestion):
Would you find it less objectionable if NPR had identified what was “fact checking” and what was “context”?
Have you shared your analysis with NPR? Like any organization comprised of fallible human beings, NPR has yet to achieve perfection. On the other hand, its management/staff seems open to criticism, willing to accept responsibility for its shortcomings, and able to make changes over time. If you haven’t done so already, I would encourage you to do so.
I’m generally a fan of NPR, too, although generally more of the non-news content (WWDTM / Old Car Talk). Not on the basis of any issues with their news production, but because I find radio and TV to be too slow-to-consume to be useful to me personally.
The answer to your first question is yes. Still, better lines wouldn’t be a full remedy for the broader issues of fiat news. The monocultural nature of most newsrooms on left and right make it very likely that localized common knowledge effects will steer people in the direction of thinking their opinions to be self-evident - equivalent to fact. In other words, we start to think that our judgments and analyses are as well-supported as facts and belong in news, even if we are otherwise trying our best to isolate that kind of content. Clearer segmentation would still be a step in the right direction. Given NPR’s unique funding sources and (one presumes) lower sensitivity to needing to drive clickbait, they’re also uniquely well-suited to doing better on this front.
The answer to your second question is no. We haven’t given that much thought. We will now.
Rusty, OK, this is a good test case for me because as I read this article yesterday my first reaction was being p*ssed off that
Then I remembered ( from your and Ben’s insightful articles) that one of the on-going “narratives” of Conservatives is that the media is slanted to the left (and how unfair that is !) which then made me pause… in self-reflection
Now your line above that “the monocultural nature of most newsrooms on the left and right…” doesn’t help matters.
Why? Because to me your line implies that there is roughly an even amount of newsrooms that are as right as on the left.
Yet the actual ratio has got to be way higher slanted to the Left.
And now I get a little p*ssed off again
SO, why not just call a spade a spade Rusty? The Left has a strangle hold on the media and uses it as much as possible for political advantage. Then sanctimoniously claims it is “The Truth”
The Right has Fox but they get portrayed by the Leftish mainstream media as buffoonish, slanted and unworthy.
So help me, how should a Libertarian (at the National level) proceed?
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum...