# Is it appropriate for news organizations to "fact check" books? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029 "2009-11-18T15:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/81 "2009-11-19T06:37:24Z")
Palin acts as if the media scrutiny of her book is totally unprecedented but also totally predictable. In that case, why didn’t she have her own team of fact-checkers combing through the manuscript? Why didn’t her publisher? Why did she let such easily-debunked bullshit get into the text when she knew the “liberal media” was going to call her on it? It’s true that the fact-checking article is bigger news than other such articles have been about other people. There are two reasons for that: first, the election made her into a bona-fide celebrity in a way that most politicians aren’t (much to McCain’s chagrin, I’m sure), and second, because they found so much bullshit. “Nancy Pelosi’s book largely free of factual error” is hardly a page one story. So I agree with Palin on that point: a big media fact-checking story about her book was completely predictable. She could have accepted this and gone the extra mile to make her book as truthful as possible, or she could have left in the bullshit and used the resulting media frenzy as an excuse to turn on the butthurt\*. I’m not really surprised by which way she went. - Yeah, I know the word has been pitted, but it’s just such a perfect descriptor for Palin’s shtick. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/82 "2009-11-19T06:39:22Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > Palin acts as if the media scrutiny of her book is totally unprecedented but also totally predictable. In that case, why didn’t she have her own team of fact-checkers combing through the manuscript? … Because the REAL truth is that she’s an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/83 "2009-11-19T09:22:38Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > It already seems from above that other conservative politicians were published and did not get the fact checking. So, it is specific to her. Why the unseemly gnashing and moaning? Because right-tards are apparently like bullies. When someone stands up to them they become whining pussies. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/84 "2009-11-19T12:45:31Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > Palin acts as if the media scrutiny of her book is totally unprecedented but also totally predictable. In that case, why didn’t she have her own team of fact-checkers combing through the manuscript? Why didn’t her publisher? Why did she let such easily-debunked bullshit get into the text when she knew the “liberal media” was going to call her on it? Because fact-checking gives her one more thing to whine about. “Waahh! They’re being mean to me!” To which her following responds with, “That’s OK, Sarah! We still love you!” That’s what she wants. Keep in mind that, clinically or not, she’s one hell of a narcissist. When she spouts bullshit in her book and gets called on it, it’s not her fault for lying. It’s the fault of the biased liberal media who hates her and wants to see her fail. To which her following responds with, “That’s OK, Sarah! We still love you!” ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/85 "2009-11-19T13:21:09Z")
[Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/nov/17/fact-checking-new-claims-palin-book/) are currently picking through it, although it looks like much of the same stuff as in the AP article. Note that where she gets it right, she gets credit for it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/86 "2009-11-19T13:42:47Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Because right-tards are apparently like bullies. When someone stands up to them they become whining pussies. Truth. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/87 "2009-11-19T14:19:09Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **Shodan** , I think you’re still missing the point. I wasn’t claiming that Obama’s 2006 book wasn’t about politics. I was just pointing out that Obama in 2006 was nowhere near as well-known a public political figure as Palin in 2009. No, I am not missing anything. You claimed > [@Kimstu](#): > > Doesn’t this comparison with Obama’s books kind of miss the point that when Obama’s books came out (in 1995 and 2006), Obama was not a nationally recognized Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate? When _The Audacity of Hope_ came out, Obama was both nationally recognized (as I mentioned, the title of the book is the same as the title of the speech he gave at the DNC national convention, and he was a Senator) and he announced his candidacy a few months after the release of the book which was a statement of his campaign themes. Are you claiming that Sarah Pallin has announced for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency? If so, cite please. So, a prominent national figure, widely expected to be a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate, puts out a book. In one case, the AP assigns a whole team to fact-check the book and instantly releases an opinion piece attacking it. In the other, nothing. Funny how that works. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/88 "2009-11-19T14:28:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In one case, the AP assigns a whole team to fact-check the book and instantly releases an opinion piece attacking it. In the other, nothing. Funny how that works. > > Regards, > Shodan I thought the Right was philosophically opposed to Victim Culture. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/89 "2009-11-19T14:40:46Z")
No, the Right usually operate via [misleading emails](http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp). Why check facts when you can sling innuendo? And speaking of innuendo, have we actually established that the AP _didn’t_ factcheck Obama’s book? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/90 "2009-11-19T14:45:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A better illustration would be Hilary “Sniper Fire” Clinton. What efforts have been made for her? Good point. I mean, _ **I** _ became aware that she was BSing by using my clairvoyant time-travel vision (a power we evidently have in common), but it would have been nice if the media had said something so that other people could have found it out, too… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/91 "2009-11-19T15:02:40Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Good point. I mean, _ **I** _ became aware that she was BSing by using my clairvoyant time-travel vision (a power we evidently have in common), but it would have been nice if the media had said something so that other people could have found it out, too… Not fair. During the campaign, when she was in strong contention for the nomination, it became clear she was willing to play a bit loose with the truth. At that point, it seems her books could have been subjected to the fine-tooth comb treatment, no clairvoyant time-travel vision needed. But yeah, since we both have it, how 'bout that Game 6 of the 2010 World Series? Was that an amazing ninth inning or what? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/92 "2009-11-19T15:13:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not fair. During the campaign, when she was in strong contention for the nomination, it became clear she was willing to play a bit loose with the truth. At that point, it seems her books could have been subjected to the fine-tooth comb treatment, no clairvoyant time-travel vision needed. She hadn’t written any yet. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/93 "2009-11-19T15:14:24Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I thought the Right was philosophically opposed to Victim Culture. Unless the supposed victim is Republican. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/94 "2009-11-19T15:40:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > She hadn’t written any yet. :rolleyes: Well, she had, just not recently. _It Takes A Village_ came out in, what, 1999? I mean, I don’t see why anyone would go back and fact-check a 9-year-old book, but hey… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/95 "2009-11-19T15:41:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > Doesn’t this comparison with Obama’s books kind of miss the point that when Obama’s books came out (in 1995 and 2006), Obama was not a nationally recognized Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate? > > When The Audacity of Hope came out, Obama was both nationally recognized (as I mentioned, the title of the book is the same as the title of the speech he gave at the DNC national convention, and he was a Senator) and he announced his candidacy a few months after the release of the book which was a statement of his campaign themes. But when the book actually came out, he was **not** a candidate. And he certainly had a lot less popular name recognition back in 2006 than Sarah Palin does now. I really don’t see how you can tap-dance your way around the fundamental fact that the author of the brand-new book _The Audacity of Hope_ back in 2006 had a **far** less newsworthy public persona than the author of the brand-new book _Going Rogue_ does right now. > [@Shodan](#): > > Are you claiming that Sarah Pallin has announced for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency? If so, cite please. Um, yes. You may have missed it, but [it happened back in summer 2008](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html). She’s not running for national office at the moment ([yet?](http://www.palin4pres2012.com/)), but she certainly is a universally known media megastar precisely on account of her record as a Vice-Presidential candidate. C’mon **Shodan** , you’re really stretching a point here. The difference in newsworthiness between Obama in 2006 and Palin in 2009, on account of their difference in exposure in national campaigns at those respective times, is real and substantial. It certainly deserves to be considered as a factor in the difference in the media response to the appearance of their books. And that’s not even taking into consideration Palin’s widespread reputation as a bumbler and prevaricator, who is considered untrustworthy and a liar even by many of her fellow Republicans. Mind you, I’m not asserting that there can’t **possibly** have been **any** animus against Palin personally operating in the decision to put out a news article on the errors in her book. It’s well-known that Palin has a tense, not to say dysfunctional, relationship with the media, and she (unlike McCain, for example) probably has few fans among professional journalists. But I think that Palin’s defenders, in their haste to lay claim to the victim label by attributing this fact-checking article **solely** to anti-Palin and/or anti-conservative media bias, are losing sight of some pretty obvious facts. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/96 "2009-11-19T15:45:28Z")
Clinton’s written two books (It Takes a Village in 1996 and Living History in 2003), and neither was very new by the time she declared for the nomination. It’s standard for candidates to put out a book as they are running, or preparing to run. Most of these are ignored. Did anybody here read Four Trials by John Edwards or G.W. Bush’s A Charge to Keep? Does anyone remember major press coverage of those books? When the politician is famous enough, his or her writings will be scrutinized. The question isn’t “Why Not Obama?” it’s “Why Palin?” And the answer, basically, is that she’s Palin. She’s enough of a known entity that everything she says and does is colored by her pre-existing reputation. Obama wasn’t a nobody in 2006 and there is no reason his book couldn’t have been subject to similar fact checking, but it’s also a fact that he didn’t have that kind of profile. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/97 "2009-11-19T15:54:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think it’s rather hypocritical to hand-wave away the non-fact checking of Obama’s 2006 book. Certainly it would have made sense once he announced his candidacy. If Palin meets the “needs a fact check” criteria, then Obama did then. > > Just out of morbid curiosity, can anyone who has slogged thru the fact checking post what he or she thinks are the 3 most egregious errors she made? I think it is perfectly non-hypocritical to be ok with a non-factchecking of Obama’s book(on which we have no evidence either way) and to think it’s appropriate(or at least a natural consequence) to see Palin’s book fact-checked. The factor which makes this a possibility for me is the respective individual’s relationship with the media. Palin’s book is reportedly a sort of memoir about her experience on the campaign trail. Numerous times it includes criticism of the media coverage, and the organizations which covered her. Obama’s book, again reportedly, I haven’t read it, doesn’t have such comments. You throw rocks at the media in your book, expect them to throw rocks back. There’s nothing hypocritical about that in the least. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/98 "2009-11-19T15:56:18Z")
To throw their relative fame and book sales into perspective, [The New York Times reported that about 182,000 copies of The Audacity of Hope were sold in the first three weeks, give or take, after it was released.](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/books/09obam.html) And for perspective, the author says > [@](#): > > Of course many political books, like those by Bill and Hillary Clinton, have been monstrous best sellers. “My Life,” by Mr. Clinton, has sold roughly 1.3 million copies, according to BookScan, and “Living History,” by Senator Clinton, has sold 1.2 million copies. Again, Living History came out in 2003, and My Life came out in 2004, so those books were a few years old by then. [This Wall Street Journal blog post says there are 1.6 million copies of Going Rogue in print, including a new run of 100,000 copies.](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/17/sales-of-palins-going-rogue-prompt-another-press-run/) It goes without saying that most of those are probably preorders. Now, that’s the number in print, not the number sold, but even so, the difference between Palin’s book in a couple of days and Obama’s in its first few weeks is a factor of ten. So if you want to know why reporters were checking into Palin’s book before it came out and they didn’t do it to Obama’s - now you know. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/99 "2009-11-19T16:08:18Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Well, she had, just not recently. _It Takes A Village_ came out in, what, 1999? Weren’t we discussing Palin? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/100 "2009-11-19T16:20:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Weren’t we discussing Palin? Actually, that side conversation was about Hillary Clinton. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > > [@Steve MB](#): > > > > > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > > > > > A better illustration would be Hilary “Sniper Fire” Clinton. What efforts have been made for her? > > > > > > Good point. I mean, I became aware that she was BSing by using my clairvoyant time-travel vision (a power we evidently have in common), but it would have been nice if the media had said something so that other people could have found it out, too… > > > > Not fair. During the campaign, when she was in strong contention for the nomination, it became clear she was willing to play a bit loose with the truth. At that point, it seems her books could have been subjected to the fine-tooth comb treatment, no clairvoyant time-travel vision needed. > > She hadn’t written any yet. And I then thought YOU were talking about Hillary but now realize you misunderstood and thought THEY were talking about Palin. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029.md?page=6)