A number of political fact-checking Web sites have popped up online in recent years and students aware of these services have utilized them to sort fact from political fiction.
These sites are aimed at helping voters navigate through the truths and falsehoods in the speeches and advertisements of political candidates, particularly in this year’s presidential race.
One such site, FactCheck.org, which is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, was launched in 2003 and received 1.6 million unique hits in September, said Brooks Jackson, the site’s director.
“We are a consumer advocate for voters who are increasingly being subjected to bogus claims and fact twisting,” Jackson said.
He said that his site researches the accuracy of statements made by candidates in their advertisements and debates and uses principles of fair and nonpartisan journalism to determine their validity.
“What we do is apply standards of factual accuracy and reasonable balance to political speech,” he said. “And it flunks the test quite often.”
Other fact-checking Web sites have different features to attract viewers and display the honesty of the candidates.
The Web site PolitiFact.com, a subsidiary of the St. Petersburg Times of Florida, uses a scale called the Truth-O-Meter to express how truthful a specific statement may be, said Bill Adair, the editor and founder of the site.
Adair said that his Web site is useful for the typical college student because they are online often and comfortable with the Internet.
“Students in particular are web savvy and appreciate that (the site) isn’t just a bunch of newspaper stories slapped on a website,” he said.
Those UCLA students aware of these sites said that they visit them frequently.
“Especially after the debates, I check fact-checking Web sites often,” said Jena Barchas Lichtenstein, a graduate student in anthropology, adding that the services she uses are affiliated with CNN or the New York Times.
Both editors said their sites have been very well-received by their readerships.
“We’ve gotten a hugely positive reception from all different readers,” Adair said. “People really appreciate that someone is holding politicians accountable for what they say.”
But some students said that they were not even aware that these sites existed.
Toni Chou, a first-year microbiology, immunology, and molecular genetics student, said these types of services are poorly publicized and should be more known, especially with the election just weeks away.
Nicole Saleh, a first-year economics student, agreed, saying that she noticed candidates disagreeing on key facts during the debates.
“A lot of times, you hear them say certain anecdotes and hear them say things about themselves, and the other candidates will expose what they say as false,” Saleh said.
Fact-checking of politicians’ statements has not always been as active as it is today, the editors of these Web sites said.
“In the past, the media has not done enough fact-checking,” Adair said. “We’ve fell down on the job; we’ve been too timid.”
Jackson noted that the first time in recent history double-checking politicians’ accuracy was practiced was in 1988, when numerous journalists examined claims made in political advertising.
But after that election, the practice again lost popularity an the media’s old role of information gatekeeper faltered, Jackson said, adding that his Web site and those of others now fulfill this purpose.
“Ordinary citizens are looking for a referee; there’s no gatekeeper to keep the bogus stuff out of the public discourse anymore,” Jackson said. “We’re all exposed to it for better or worse (and) we’re all looking for some honest brokers to help us sort through it.”
Despite some suspect statements made by the candidates that necessitate the need for such Web sites, however, students maintain that they have faith in the truth.
“I’m optimistic but skeptical,” Saleh said. “(But) I try to hold out on optimism in an honest political system.”