Everyone's Bid to Disprove Each Other
The recent U.S. Presidential Debate on September 10th, 2024, left spectators around the world in shock over several claims that were made by former U.S. President Donald Trump. These claims were flagged during the debate as being false, with the days following the debate witnessing a flood of headlines and the term “fact-checking." Whether it be counting the number of false claims made, criticizing the debaters or moderators, or the media outlets' commentary, fact-checking has made itself at home in the world of politics.
The rise of fact-checking within politics (especially within the U.S.) brings to mind the question: how much do these false claims impact the perception and understanding of voters? It would be a fair assumption to suspect that repeated use of untrue statements, especially those made by authority figures, is bound to spread misconceptions among voters. There is truth in this assumption, with a study done by Vanderbilt University in 2023 explaining the ‘illusory truth effect’ within politics: “repetition increases belief in both true and false statements.” It should be said that as the amount of false claims has risen, so has the need for fact-checking. Axios states that fact-checking has gone “mainstream” during Donald Trump’s presidency, claiming a whopping 200 percent increase in fact-checking organizations worldwide since the start of his presidency. Twenty percent of those organizations are based in the U.S. In the context of the increase in the number of these organizations, Lucas Graves, author of Deciding What's True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism and Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin, states that this is “definitely a response to the extraordinary propensity for falsehoods that President Trump has exhibited as President and before that, during [his] campaign.” How many false claims would need to be made to solicit such a response? 30,573, according to the Washington Post Fact-Checker.
While fact-checking within politics gained most of its traction during Trump’s Presidential campaign and term, it was not when it first occurred in the realm of political elections. In “The Rise of Political Fact-Checking, How Reagan Inspired a Journalistic Movement: A Reporter’s Eye View,” Michael Dobbs (founder of the Washington Post Fact-Checker) details how, in 1988, Washington Post journalist David Broder voiced his discontent with how the press failed to expose the Republican-run campaign “smears” against Massachusetts governor, Michael Dukakis. He goes on to state how Broder wrote about the responsibility of journalists to unveil the truth bluntly to properly combat claims made by consultants that “have become increasingly sophisticated about insinuating—visually or verbally—charges that they avoid making in literal terms.” Broder’s persistence in providing clear facts to the public has been cited as the inspiration for the creation of fact-checking organizations Factcheck.org and Politifact. Another election where the dire need for fact-checking made itself known was during the 2004 Presidential Election, where John Kerry (former secretary of state and Democratic Presidential candidate) was suspected of “inflating his war record in Vietnam.” This leads Michael Dobbs to become “determined to avoid the mistakes we had committed during the run-up to the Iraq war.”
Currently, the aforementioned fact-checking organization Factcheck.org works to disprove false claims made in U.S. politics. Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan, non-profit fact-checking organization, details on its website how to properly fact-check claims made by U.S. politicians. To flag questionable claims made by politicians, Factcheck.org utilizes “Sunday talk shows” on major news networks such as NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, and Fox News. In addition to this, C-Span coverage, transcripts, social media posts, press releases, and personal websites are also read to gather more quotes. The fact-checkers look for claims made by the Republican and Democratic parties; if the fact-checkers come across a claim that seems questionable, the team then reaches out to the individual or organization that made the claim. After contact has been attempted, it is now up to the individual or organization “making the claim to provide the evidence to support it.” If no evidence is provided, then Factcheck.org will conduct their own research, utilizing different departments and offices within the government, such as “the Library of Congress for congressional testimony; the House Clerk and Senate Secretary’s office for roll call votes; the Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment data; the Securities and Exchange Commission for corporate records; the IRS for tax data; the Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic data; and the Energy Information Administration for energy data.” Nonpartisan governmental agencies (such as the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.) are also relied on during this process for their expertise.
With the 2024 U.S. presidential elections rearing up and the Republican Party’s candidate being former President Donald Trump, the phrase ‘fact-checking’ has become common in headlines. The ABC-hosted debate on September 10th made for a different fact-checking procedure than the CNN-hosted one on June 27th. While CNN provided an online fact-check, as well as a fact-checking segment after the televised debate, ABC’s moderators periodically interjected the debate to provide live fact-checks when a false claim was made. For example, Trump claimed there was Democratic support (specifically from Harris and her VP candidate, Tim Walz) for abortion in the 9th month of pregnancy and even executing the child after birth. Debate moderator Linsey Davis interjected here to remind Trump that his idea that Democrats are trying to “pass legislation where you can execute the baby after birth” (which is considered infanticide and/or homicide, and is not legal) is a fabricated ordeal and is “crazy" and that “there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born.” With Trump's perpetuation of false claims, his supporters are growing to believe these claims despite their often absurdity. Similarly, Harris' supporters are very likely to trust her going forward as well, despite her habit of offering misleading claims, further solidifying the political divide seen within the country.
The week following the debate, overcome with the public's reactions, is especially influencing on voters’ decisions. According to The Hill, 6 out of 10 people who watched the debate thought the Vice President won. As of October 14th, Harris led the polls by two points, with four out of the seven major swing states leaning in her favor. This two-point lead is a decline from the previous six-point lead that Harris held as of September 17th, leaving the running candidates almost neck-and-neck.
