# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/101 "2009-11-19T16:28:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. Gosh, that horrible liberal media. How could Palin have expected this? After all, the liberal media goes to great pains to pretend to be unbiased, and so there’s no way a naive newcomer like Palin could have known that the media might be biased against her. Only media savvy insiders–like Rush Limbaugh listeners–could have known that her book might attract some attention from the nattering nabobs of negativity. After all, it’s not like media bias against conservatives is a well known issue. Most conservatives don’t like to talk about it, because they don’t want to come off as victims looking for sympathy. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/102 "2009-11-19T16:49:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Um, yes. Um, no. Sarah Palin is not currently a candidate for President or Vice-President. > [@](#): > > She’s not running for national office at the moment In exactly the same way that Obama was not running for President or Vice-President when his book came out. He was widely and correctly suspected of preparing for such a run when the book was published. Just like some suspect that Sarah Palin nay declare for the Presidency sometime in the next three years. And yet, the AP puts a bunch of people to the task of debunking the one, but never the other. > [@](#): > > 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. The only obvious fact is the one you are trying desperately to deny - there is a rather clear double standard. Actually, that is not quite correct - the standard is that the opposition is expected to debunk any book that a candidate from the other party writes. In Obama’s case, that debunking comes from Republicans. In Palin’s case, it comes from the MSM. In both cases, it comes from people who oppose the other party on partisan grounds. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/103 "2009-11-19T16:53:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And yet, the AP puts a bunch of people to the task of debunking the one, but never the other. > The only obvious fact is the one you are trying desperately to deny - there is a rather clear double standard. Did you notice the sales figures I posted earlier? They do a lot to account for this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/104 "2009-11-19T16:58:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In exactly the same way that Obama was not running for President or Vice-President when his book came out. He was widely and correctly suspected of preparing for such a run when the book was published. Just like some suspect that Sarah Palin nay declare for the Presidency sometime in the next three years. > > And yet, the AP puts a bunch of people to the task of debunking the one, but never the other. > > The only obvious fact is the one you are trying desperately to deny - there is a rather clear double standard. I’ll repeat the request…cite that the AP never fact checked Obama’s book. It beggars belief to think a serious candidate for president didn’t have his books thoroughly scrutinized…by pretty much everyone. Do you think the Clinton campaign didn’t pour over his books thoroughly? Do you think the McCain campaign didn’t do that? Do you think news organizations ignored a source of insight to a presidential candidate? You think Limbaugh (or some lackey of his) didn’t probe the book zealously? More, do you think they all found stupid, factually inaccurate parts of the book and they all remained quiet? Some vast liberal conspiracy that even Limbaugh and Fox Noise was in on? :rolleyes: ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/105 "2009-11-19T17:01:47Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’ll repeat the request…cite that the AP never fact checked Obama’s book. They didn’t report all the lies in it, did they? And it must have been chock-full of them, right? He’s a Democrat, isn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/106 "2009-11-19T17:02:03Z")
I’d still love to hear what some of those factual inaccuracies are in Obaam’s books that the entire “MSM” is consipring to conceal. I’m especially curious as to how they got the _right_ wing media, including all of talk radio, Fox News, the right-o-sphere, the GOP and the McCain campaign to go along with the conspiracy to conceal all those lies that Obama’s memoirs must be replete with. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/107 "2009-11-19T17:08:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In Obama’s case, that debunking comes from Republicans. Is there a cite for that “debunking”, Charlie? > [@](#): > > In Palin’s case, it comes from the MSM. In both cases, it comes from people who oppose the other party on partisan grounds. Cite that the MSM opposes the Republicans? The last eight years have pretty much been a love-in for the Bush administration, and the primaries and presidential campaign last year were covered pretty evenhandedly…for every “gotcha” question that Palin was asked, there was someone spouting off about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers\*. Sometimes it seemed like the “shilling for the Republicans” arm of the scale was sitting pretty low on the chain… \*Please to note the definition of “False Equivalency”, btw. Thanks. ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/108 "2009-11-19T17:16:29Z")
[pedant] Books are **[pored](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pored)** over, not poured over (unless you live somewhere they still burn books, in which case you pour the lighter fluid over them). [/pedant] ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/109 "2009-11-19T17:22:11Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > [pedant] > > Books are **[pored](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pored)** over, not poured over (unless you live somewhere they still burn books, in which case you pour the lighter fluid over them). > > [/pedant] :smack: I should have caught that. Although wouldn’t surprise me if Limbaugh and a few others literally pissed on Obama’s book so does that count as “pouring” over it? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/110 "2009-11-19T17:23:14Z")
> [@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. I may have missed something as I’ve been reading this thread sporadically. If so apologies for anything that’s been anticipated by other posters… How can it be established that Obama’s 2006 book _hasn’t_ been fact-checked–fact-checked by any number of reviewers, by journalists who have reported on Obama since his candidacy and now his presidency, as well as any number of political opponents during the same period. Unless and until someone demonstrates that Obama’s 2006 books is full of erroneous claims that ought to be have been uncovered via a rigorous fact check the difference between the cases, Palin vs. Obama, comes down to who the respective figures were _when they wrote these two books_. Palin has already run for higher office and she is expected to run for president in 2012. Obama in 2006 was just coming into his own–a rising star, to be sure, but not someone predicted to be the Democratic candidate. I will hazard that had Obama been the VP nominee for the Democrats in 08, and if the Democrats had lost that race, that if Obama were now to write a book about his past and current political career in anticipation of a run for the presidency in 2012, that this book would receive the kind of scrutiny that Palin’s is now receiving. Does anyone actually doubt that? ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/111 "2009-11-19T17:28:16Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Cite that the MSM opposes the Republicans? The last eight years have pretty much been a love-in for the Bush administration, and the primaries and presidential campaign last year were covered pretty evenhandedly…for every “gotcha” question that Palin was asked, there was someone spouting off about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers\*. Sometimes it seemed like the “shilling for the Republicans” arm of the scale was sitting pretty low on the chain… > > \*Please to note the definition of “False Equivalency”, btw. Thanks. It is important to note the following: If the MSM give negative coverage of the Right or positive coverage of the Left, it is because the MSM has a blatant Left bias. If the MSM give positive coverage of the Right or negative coverage of the Left, it is because it is a truth so undeniable it cannot be suppressed. That should explain it. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/112 "2009-11-19T17:28:56Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > Does anyone actually doubt that? I do kind of think it would depend on how much of an absolute dolt Obama had shown himself to be during the presidential campaign. Since Obama was nowhere near as doltish as Bible Spice was, and showed himself to be somewhat better acquainted with historical, cultural and political fact than she has shown herself to be, I’m not sure that it would be quite as much of an announced production as it has been for her. There’s more involved here than just the fact that Palin is/was a Republican. There’s also the fact that she is completely ignorant and uninformed about…well, pretty much everything that doesn’t involved shooting wolves from helicopters and playing the flute as part of your talent segment. I really have to admit that Palin-lovers are apparently seeing the world from an entirely different angle than I am to be taking her seriously. I mean, they’re hanging by their toes from a tree branch or something. Because I not only have trouble taking HER seriously, but I have trouble taking THEM seriously because of it. Comparing Obama and Palin is like comparing Einstein and Zippy the Pinhead. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/113 "2009-11-19T17:30:03Z")
I don’t know of any point by point refutations of either of Obama’s books coming from a media outlet. That would be the most comparable to Palin’s book, although there are content differences. Again, that doesn’t mean Obama’s book didn’t get any scrutiny. Here’s a New York Times article from February 2008 that “rebuts” the way he dealt with his college age drug-dabbling. (I mentioned this article upthread. At the time, I thought this was a really stupid excuse for a non-story, and I still do.) [“Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life”](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html?scp=1&sq=obama+dreams+marijuana&st=nyt) > [@](#): > > Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic. > In more than three dozen interviews, friends, classmates and mentors from his high school and Occidental recalled Mr. Obama as being grounded, motivated and poised, someone who did not appear to be grappling with any drug problems and seemed to dabble only with marijuana. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/114 "2009-11-19T17:31:42Z")
Hell, fact checking doesn’t need to be assigned, there are legions upon legions of self-appointed fact checkers. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/115 "2009-11-19T17:34:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hell, fact checking doesn’t need to be assigned, there are legions upon legions of self-appointed fact checkers. Seriously. I find it hard to believe that talk radio, Fox News, the McCain campaign, the Clinton campaign and the RNC didn’t pore over both of Obama’s books. Either they found almost nothing to refute, or they kept very quiet about it. While I admire that kind of restraint, that strong desire not to rush down to the gutter, I admit that I find it hard to attribute it to those particular agencies. ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/116 "2009-11-19T17:36:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hell, fact checking doesn’t need to be assigned, there are legions upon legions of self-appointed fact checkers. That’s not what **Shodan** is saying, though. He’s talking about the conduct of the objectivity-oriented press. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/117 "2009-11-19T17:37:44Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I do kind of think it would depend on how much of an absolute dolt Obama had shown himself to be during the presidential campaign. … > > Comparing Obama and Palin is like comparing Einstein and Zippy the Pinhead. I know what you’re saying **jayjay** , but I do still feel that the level of scrutiny would be comparable even if different kinds of “gotcha” moments would be the object of the scrutiny. Consider the ongoing “fact-checking” process into Obama’s birth certificate. Or the allegation that he was “lying” with the claim he made about non-eligibility of illegal immigrants in his health care speech. Who can doubt that if Obama wrote a book right now (even if he were a 2012 candidate versus a sitting president) an army of fact-checkers would be looking into the veracity of his political claims–as well as any kind of “evidence” they might get for his secret Muslim, non-US life. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/118 "2009-11-19T17:40:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Um, no. Sarah Palin is not currently a candidate for President or Vice-President. How unhelpfully disingenuous **Shodan**. Surely you’re aware that Palin is widely expected to run for president in 2012. She’s also a major celebrity; someone who resigned as Alaska’s governor in order to focus on national politics. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/119 "2009-11-19T17:49:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not what **Shodan** is saying, though. He’s talking about the conduct of the objectivity-oriented press. Maybe so, but let’s be real: if the _Weekly Standard_ or some such outfit had fact-checked _The Audacity of Hope_ and found it chock-full of factual inaccuracies, that would have been picked up right away by the so-called liberal media if their findings held any water at all. Given the size of the network of right-wing media, think tanks, lobbying operations, and so forth, I can see where the AP or any similar organization would consider this task effectively farmed out to an army of groups who were strongly motivated to find any problems that could be found with it. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029/120 "2009-11-19T18:27:53Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > How unhelpfully disingenuous **Shodan**. Surely you’re aware that Palin is widely expected to run for president in 2012. How unhelpfully stupid, **Dorothea**. You apparently didn’t bother to read all the way to the next paragraph. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Gosh, that horrible liberal media. > > How could Palin have expected this? After all, the liberal media goes to great pains to pretend to be unbiased, and so there’s no way a naive newcomer like Palin could have known that the media might be biased against her. I don’t know anybody except the really partisan morons who expect Sarah Palin to get a fair break from the media. That’s my point - the media pretense is that they are objective. The trouble is maintaining the pose in the teeth of examples like this one. If AP wants to be the unpaid propaganda wing of the Democratic party, they should admit it up front. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-appropriate-for-news-organizations-to-fact-check-books/518029.md?page=7)