Thanks for bringing that one up!
And here’s The Onion parodying the fact-checking of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
Does anyone have any links to the fact-checking that AP did for Obama’s books?
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, and what about Mike Huckabee’s books? These are relevant questions! Liberal hypocrisy and bias in media: EXPOSED!
And George Bush’s book, too! 
If a book is found to be quite correct in its factual citing, I imagine it doesn’t get much media play. It’s an extension of the current media thinking that “good news is no news”.
To be fair, it really wouldn’t take very long to fact-check “My Pet Goat”.
Mmmm, current thinking? I should think it’s pretty standard media experience. Merely reporting there’s no factual errors is just not very interesting.
In that case, you do a book review.
My pet goat had some huge factual errors!!
True enough. I got bitter about something unrelated.
Both Obama’s books were researched endlessly for factual accuracy? Cite please for any fact checking by the major news organizations excluding fox.
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? Heck, in 1995 he didn’t even hold elected office.
Whatever your opinion of the relative merits of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama as authors or as reliable sources, there’s no denying that Palin right now has much more public name recognition and hence newsworthiness than Obama did back in 2006, much less in 1995.
Consequently, it’s hardly surprising that the question “Hey, what’s in the new book by Sarah Palin?” rates more media attention in 2008 than the question “Hey, what’s in the new book by Barack Obama?” did in 2006.
That said, I still think that the most appropriate place to discuss what’s in a new book is a book review.
They were researched by his opposition. I have no idea if they were researched by major news organizations, but I would imagine they were since it’s routine to do so. I doubt they did it when his first book came out since he was a complete unknown, and was not a politician. Even when his 2nd book was published in 2006, he still wasn’t a major national name yet.
Why don’t you give some examples of factual inaccuracies which the major news organizations ignored in Obama’s books. If you can’t come up with any factual inaccuracies your point is completely vacant.
To be a little more specific, his second book came out while he was thinking about running for president. Not that many people thought he was going to win.
This, however, is a very good point. She’s almost as well known as he is. And his writings got plenty of scrutiny during the campaign. Anyone remember where the title of Audacity of Hope came from? It was being discussed just a touch last spring!
Not really. He published Dreams From My Father after he was elected as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was republished after he gave the keynote address at the DNC National Convention. I am not aware if it was fact-checked at either point, which is why I asked for a cite.
Your claim that he published The Audacity of Hope before he was a national figure is much more unambiguously false. This is the title of the address he gave at the DNC convention. Most of the book is his campaign positions. So he was clearly a national figure, and a Senator, and he announced his candidacy a couple of months after its release date. So he was clearly both a national figure, and a Presidential candidate.
So the answer to this -
No, it doesn’t.
Even the New York Times says that “Mr. Obama’s new book, ‘The Audacity of Hope’ … is much more of a political document. Portions of the volume read like outtakes from a stump speech, and the bulk of it is devoted to laying out Mr. Obama’s policy positions on a host of issues, from education to health care to the war in Iraq”.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, this is what The Audacity of Hope is like. Policy positions aren’t something that are accurate or false, they’re just political stances. It’s not a book that is subject to fact checking. Palin’s, on the other hand, makes a lot of statements about things that happened in the campaign just one year ago, and a lot of the people who fact checked it were covering the campaign. The statements of fact can easily be verified by people in the campaign, and by the reporters who were there. Presidential memoirs are similarly fact checked when they are published.
Quick, who’s the current President of the Harvard Law Review.
After which point he was still far less well known than figures like Newt Gingrich amd Rudy Giuliani who ike wise did not have their books fact checked.
Nope, Sorry. Absolutely true. His name recognition was still very low. Much lower than plenty others who still weren’t newsworthy enough to have their books fact checked by the AP.
This post is a complete non-sequitur to the post you’re responding to. What does the content of his book have to do with whether he was a nationally recognized figure at the time?
He was known to political junkies, but was not yet regarded as a serious contender for the Presidency. The majority of Americans still did not even recognize his name.
How about somebody coming up with some factual inaccuracies in Obama’s books? Let’s see them.
Beter yet, how about some Palin supporters actually responding to the fact that her book contains provable lies. Does that bother you? Do you care?
In 2006 Obama had far less national recognition than Palin does today. Hell, even Huckabee in 2008 had more recognition, and nobody gives a shit about his books. Why do you suppose that is?
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?