*sniff*

It seems like a subtle point, when people can find real data in a couple clicks on Google, but I think it’s very similar to Microsoft’s argument that it didn’t matter that they made Internet Explorer the default web browser because you could easily download Netscape. The default browser still has a very very high success rate (how’s that for an analogy you’d only read in blog discussion), and people still believe that we went to Iraq to get the guys who attacked us on 9/11.

I believe the default setting for reporters should be to point out verifiable bullshit when it is reported, and that’s not at all the same as “spinning” a story. Spinning a story would be to point out that the person in question has said questionable things in the past. Reporting verifiable facts that are relevant is what it means to be a reporter, but I never ever seem to see that.

The only good reason I can think of for this is that the political parties have been so successful in convincing us that everyone and everything is inherently political — you’re either red or blue, for or against, liberal or conservative. If you accept that, there’s no room for pure fact anymore. You have an economist that says it’s ridiculous to say we’re paying down the deficit? He’s obviously a liberal Clintonite and can’t be trusted, it’s his word against mine, and you don’t want to look like a “liberal” newspaper do you? You have an entire scientific community that says global warming is a terrible fact? Well, I have an industry expert here that says that’s all just alarmism and political fear-mongering.

It’s true that there are two sides to every story, but I wish reporters would remember to figure out which one of them is supported by fact.