About case study 6-C Page 118-119 pdf will be uploaded
1. Is what Politifact.com does reporting? Is it objective reporting?
2. Should individual journalists be responsible for checking the political claims of public officials, or is that job best left to “fact checkers” and websites such as Politifact.com?
One paragraph long
——————————————————————————————————–
Each student reply 4 sentences each
1.Reporting does not always mean it’s 100% facts. Reporting can also be very misleading when it comes to certain situations. Politifact.com can be viewed as a reporting website by some, but many would call it a political fact checking website. To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Politifact.com is in fact an objective reporter. It also is the former winner of the pulitzer prize. Objective reporting is a form of reporting where the reporters are unbiased in an attempt to provide the most accurate coverage of the topic. In my opinion, journalists should definitely be responsible for checking their own facts in any situation. Especially, they should check their own facts when it concerns political claims or claims by public officials. Fact checkers are extremely helpful to use when strained for time, due to a deadline or whatever the case may be. But to have the most accurate and original reporting, a journalist should do their own digging into the facts. Because in reality you can’t trust these databases online, due to the fact they can be altered among other tampering. These websites aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but you shouldn’t lean on them for your concrete fact checking.
2.Politifact does not report the news. All they do is fact check politicians. When they do fact check politicians they are not objective because they have a bias towards every politician on the left. On Politifact’s website they have every statement made by left-wing politicians as true instead of false. Individual journalist should check political claims because if they are being objective they will not inject any bias into the reporting.
3.Fact checking itself is not news. Politifact.com is not reporting. Its objective is not reporting but to assist in developing real news stories, something like the process of eliminating and combating fake news. It helps to identify the level of truth in a statement, such as truthful, mostly true or mostly false. Chief Bill Adair of the “Tampa Bay Times” felt fact checking was so important after 205 state department employees lives were changed. A Wisconsin Republican made claims about them that was not proven to be true, but because of the standing and title of the individual; the news media ran with his false claim. No fact check of any kind. This claim ultimately ruined several lives and reputations. Here is where it was determined by Adair that we must differentiate political claims and find facts no matter who is making the claims publicly of others. As an individual journalist should want to fact check. When you have the help of “fact checkers” and Politifact.com it is helpful and in the journalist best interest to fact check. When reporters don’t fact check and report word of mouth news, they risk the chance of public trust. If you are a journalist and not “fact checking” you have sensationalized facts, making them your own. Your providing opinion without checking facts and not attempting to inform but to fabricate a story or fake news to gain profit or for political gain. Journalist should be responsible for fact not just political claims but all news I feel should have a level of fact checking and with Politifact.com is makes it a little easier. Journalist should also realize as they are reporting news of any falsification it has an effect on society as a whole and the choices we make.