Fact check: This is not really a post-fact election

Here in WaPo

So voters want more fact-checking. But is it making any difference? Do people change their minds when faced with a fact check that surprises them, or do they internalize only fact checks that suit their own biases? Our understanding of basic psychology suggests that fact checks are often read with a partisan eye.

Often, but not always. A new working paper by Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College and Jason Reifler of Exeter University, who have studied fact-checking extensively, indicates that readers can learn from fact checks. Nyhan and ­Reifler conducted a survey of a representative panel of 1,000 Americans to gauge their general knowledge, party preferences and attitudes toward fact-checking. They then took participants who accepted a follow-up invitation to be studied further and split them into two groups. One half received nine fact checks; the other half was the control group and received placebo content in the form of PR releases. Lo and behold, participants in the “treatment” group scored far better when asked factual questions related to the content they read than those in the control group.

The erosion of truth: Trump’s surrogates are Fox-ifying mainstream television news

One peculiar consequence of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump is that the mainstream television media has been invaded by marauding truth-free barbarians who have compromised its integrity.In normal times, mainstream television media outlets pursue excellence by seeking to adhere to well-established journalistic standards, such as the code of ethics promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists.


A central tenet of journalistic standards is that reporting must strive to be accurate and truthful. And presenting the truth is crucial not only to the integrity of news journalism but also to the proper functioning of our entire democratic society itself.

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/11/the-erosion-of-truth-trumps-surrogates-are-fox-ifying-mainstream-television-news/

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/11/the-erosion-of-truth-trumps-surrogates-are-fox-ifying-mainstream-television-news/

R.I.P. Political Journalism (1440-2016)

The unrelentingly hostile coverage of Hillary Clinton has dealt a potentially fatal blow to the corporate media's credibility. Antagonism toward Clinton has been noted by numerous media insiders. In 2014, NBC's Chuck Todd said, "I don’t think the country has Clinton fatigue. I think the media has Clinton fatigue. You can sort of feel it." Bloomberg's Mark Halperin recently conceded that "there's a deep well of anti-Clinton sentiment in the press." Those observations have been confirmed by studies from Harvard and the Washington Post — and with a few notable exceptions, corporate media coverage is getting steadily worse as Election Day approaches.

http://shareblue.com/r-i-p-political-journalism/#.V9XBi2vcEaE.twitter

Interesting series of tweets and graphs showing the negative coverage of both candidates

A week with CNN’s Corey Lewandowski

Columbia Journalism Review

Partisan hackery is a feature, not a bug, of many cable programs, and networks’ stables of on-air analysts are filled with thoroughbreds. CNN contributor Corey Lewandowski is not unique in that regard. What makes Donald Trump’s former campaign manager different from his counterparts on the split-screen is threefold: He has a non-disparagement agreement with his former boss; he will continue receiving severance payments from the Trump campaign until after the election; and he reportedly still advises the GOP nominee on an unofficial basis.