Critically examining the fact-checking fad is a good idea, but this piece doesn't do it successfully. The biggest failure is that the critique is aimed at all fact-checking, but the references are only from news papers, not the independent fact checking organizations that I would argue are quite fair.

This opinion piece maintains that "fact checking" is a fad which is really opinion journalism. While it is likely that a case could be made that the objectivity of the fact check depends on the source, this piece attempts to tar the entire genre. In some cases, the writer labels news stories or analyses as "fact checks." The irony is that most of the examples cited tend to demonstrate the value of fact checking, particularly in the case of attack ads.

Whether or not you agree with the authors opinion toward journalistic fact checking (it's just "opinion journalism"), I expect that this argument is going to gain traction in conservative political circles as it provides an alternative explanation for the news media's assertion that the McCain campaign has been less honest than the Obama campaign in this election cycle.

This is a cynical and transparent attempt to discount the crushing blow of fact-checks against the outrageously mendacious McCain-Palin campaign, which is just the latest in a long line of Republican smear tactics refined to a high art by Karl Rove. Is media really to stop evaluating the accuracy of political candidates' statements? Please. This sounds like something from the Colbert report! It insults our intelligence. Frankly, the WSJ Opinion Journal has a long tradition of doing just that.

Independent ‘fact checkers’ are just as guilty of letting their biases substitute for facts as are other journalistic sources. This includes factcheck.org for example. See my review of the Sept. 11 “Off Base on Sex Education” article. One might also compare factcheck.orgs’ review of the Vice Presidential debate with the fact checking of Ann Coulters’ Oct 8 editorial. It also might include reviewers of ‘NewsTrust’ who can not stick to just a critique of the journalism without injecting some partisan tirade. If ‘fact checkers’ would print unedited and full responses from the candidate or source being questioned for truthfulness, their credibility would be improved. Unfortunately this weak journalism only ... More »

No, it contradicts the first notion of quality journalism which is to expose falsehood and seek the truth. Journalism is not just printing press releases from the parties and quoting competing party spokesmen in the name of "balance". Taranto's obvious problem and discomfort is that his candidate comes out badly in any objective truth" ranking. If the WSJ was to do its job there would be no need for special fact checking columns or websites; and those that fell short of journalistic integrity, like this obviously partisan opinion piece, would be punished by the market.