What do you think?
Rate this book
Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism
Over the past decade, American outlets such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and the Washington Post 's Fact Checker have shaken up the political world by holding public figures accountable for what they say. Cited across social and national news media, these verdicts can rattle a political campaign and send the White House press corps scrambling. Yet fact-checking is a fraught kind of journalism, one that challenges reporters' traditional roles as objective observers and places them at the center of white-hot, real-time debates. As these journalists are the first to admit, in a hyperpartisan world, facts can easily slip into fiction, and decisions about which claims to investigate and how to judge them are frequently denounced as unfair play.
Deciding What's True draws on Lucas Graves's unique access to the members of the newsrooms leading this movement. Graves vividly recounts the routines of journalists at three of these hyperconnected, technologically innovative organizations and what informs their approach to a story. Graves also plots a compelling, personality-driven history of the fact-checking movement and its recent evolution from the blogosphere, reflecting on its revolutionary remaking of journalistic ethics and practice. His book demonstrates the ways these rising organizations depend on professional networks and media partnerships yet have also made inroads with the academic and philanthropic worlds. These networks have become a vital source of influence as fact-checking spreads around the world.
Deciding What's True draws on Lucas Graves's unique access to the members of the newsrooms leading this movement. Graves vividly recounts the routines of journalists at three of these hyperconnected, technologically innovative organizations and what informs their approach to a story. Graves also plots a compelling, personality-driven history of the fact-checking movement and its recent evolution from the blogosphere, reflecting on its revolutionary remaking of journalistic ethics and practice. His book demonstrates the ways these rising organizations depend on professional networks and media partnerships yet have also made inroads with the academic and philanthropic worlds. These networks have become a vital source of influence as fact-checking spreads around the world.
- GenresJournalismNonfiction
336 pages, Paperback
Published September 6, 2016
5 people are currently reading
149 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 5, 2017
I can’t think of a time when we’ve been more aware of the facts we’ve been consuming. Of course that has a lot to do with our political climate, claims of what’s true and what’s fake news and what responsibility we have as news consumers to look at our diet more critically. Whatever your political leanings, we can all argue that we’d all prefer to read news that’s “true.” But how do we find out what is true?
These are the hopes I had going into Lucas Graves’ book Deciding What’s True. I would become a master at distinguishing what’s true and what’s been cleverly manufactured to deceive us. Well, not really. I just want to be a more informed member of society. And unfortunately, Graves’ book is not as promising as it sounds.
Lucas has a history working for Politifact and as such I hoped we’d get into how exactly political figures are held accountable for what they say. Instead, Deciding What’s True reads more like how running a fact-checking organization works. So think about it this way: you’re interested in movies and how they get made, instead you’re getting a tell-all book of how movie studios are run. Instead of seeing how the sausage is made, you’re seeing how to run a butcher shop. You want to find out how to record an album, instead you’re finding out how to run a record label. This book is just too removed from the process to make it really interesting. Are you getting my drift?
There are some great highlights in Deciding What’s True, and that’s when Graves breaks down a fact check from it’s utterance, to the process of fact checking, to the response, and the aftermath. Yes, this is what I wanted! But those moments are very few and far in between (maybe two good examples are used), and instead Graves tediously describes the process (in academic language, no less) of what fact checkers think of themselves, what their conferences are like, how their organizations are funded (OK, that part is actually pretty interesting) how having a social media presence is very important, and telling us over and over again what he’s going to be telling us in the next paragraph, or page, or next chapter.
There is no doubt that I have some new respect for fact-checking after reading this book, but honestly I thought I’d get more out of it.
These are the hopes I had going into Lucas Graves’ book Deciding What’s True. I would become a master at distinguishing what’s true and what’s been cleverly manufactured to deceive us. Well, not really. I just want to be a more informed member of society. And unfortunately, Graves’ book is not as promising as it sounds.
Lucas has a history working for Politifact and as such I hoped we’d get into how exactly political figures are held accountable for what they say. Instead, Deciding What’s True reads more like how running a fact-checking organization works. So think about it this way: you’re interested in movies and how they get made, instead you’re getting a tell-all book of how movie studios are run. Instead of seeing how the sausage is made, you’re seeing how to run a butcher shop. You want to find out how to record an album, instead you’re finding out how to run a record label. This book is just too removed from the process to make it really interesting. Are you getting my drift?
There are some great highlights in Deciding What’s True, and that’s when Graves breaks down a fact check from it’s utterance, to the process of fact checking, to the response, and the aftermath. Yes, this is what I wanted! But those moments are very few and far in between (maybe two good examples are used), and instead Graves tediously describes the process (in academic language, no less) of what fact checkers think of themselves, what their conferences are like, how their organizations are funded (OK, that part is actually pretty interesting) how having a social media presence is very important, and telling us over and over again what he’s going to be telling us in the next paragraph, or page, or next chapter.
There is no doubt that I have some new respect for fact-checking after reading this book, but honestly I thought I’d get more out of it.
June 9, 2022
This book is worth your attention. It has a subtle gravity. Like a house build well.
There’s a mixture of important points in this book that can help different people for different reasons. The politics of truth are quite contentious. Maybe these politics are understated in this book, or maybe by sticking so close to his observations, Graves makes a more compelling argument?
It’s a well-grounded study. Non-academic should leave it with the minimum realizations that: 1) Truth is not simple nor obvious. 2) The politics and negotiation of truth quickly reduces to people doing subjective but rigorous work. 3) If trust and truth go hand-in-hand, then it’s important to assess not only the evidence but also the effort behind the construction of that truth.
It was an easy book to read with interesting sources.
There’s a mixture of important points in this book that can help different people for different reasons. The politics of truth are quite contentious. Maybe these politics are understated in this book, or maybe by sticking so close to his observations, Graves makes a more compelling argument?
It’s a well-grounded study. Non-academic should leave it with the minimum realizations that: 1) Truth is not simple nor obvious. 2) The politics and negotiation of truth quickly reduces to people doing subjective but rigorous work. 3) If trust and truth go hand-in-hand, then it’s important to assess not only the evidence but also the effort behind the construction of that truth.
It was an easy book to read with interesting sources.
November 7, 2021
3.5 stars. read this for a sts class taught by graves, but in retrospect i would have probably read it out of personal interest anyway. my main gripe is excessive redundancy. i enjoyed the field reports the most, and as someone outside the field of journalism, i appreciated the historical overview of objective and interpretive trends in reporting (although these sections, and the references to the literature more generally, seemed a little unclear of their audience and whether it was lay or academic). i am curious to check in and see what happened to all of these fact checking organizations over the course of the trump presidency
January 7, 2019
I enjoyed reading this book. It seems to be more of a history of how the websites mentioned in the synopsis formed than about fact-checking in general. I use all those sites on a regular basis so it was interesting for me.
Mr. Graves does explain why he decided to focus on these three websites. He also explains his affiliation with the people involved at the managing editor level in addition to the methodology used to determine what claims receive a fact check.
Mr. Graves does explain why he decided to focus on these three websites. He also explains his affiliation with the people involved at the managing editor level in addition to the methodology used to determine what claims receive a fact check.
August 4, 2016
Fact-checking has entered the everyday lexicon in the United States, primarily due to political campaigning, whereby many individuals and groups are “stress testing” claims and promises being made for terminological inexactitude (lies, mistruths and plain errors in other words). Add in the power of the Internet, growing political polarisation and mistrust of the media and you can see why fact-checking is becoming an ever-present activity. This book looks at the world of fact-checking, who is doing it and why!
It is not just a case of interpretation and genuine errors being made in the rush to publish. Some media outlets and their contributors may be partisan or even been sold a pup by a source with a vested interest. What about statements and information from government? They should be neutral but in the rush to polish public perception and get their narrative clearly stated there is a risk that facts may be moveable, interpretable fixtures. Candidates, of course, deliver their statements on oath, don’t they…
The author looked behind the scenes at several media outlets, examining how they conducted their activities and considered how individual components in the machine functioned. How facts are managed, massaged and checked are also considered, looking at the whole situation from different sides. It is far from clear, one-sided and idealistic; a claim that can often be placed both on media organisations and on the fact-checkers.
Fact-checking should not be under-appreciated. In this ever-connected, hyper-speed world any incorrect facts, whether present by accident or intention, can be spread around the world in seconds. Social media storms can blow up and reputations be damaged. Once the genie is out of the bottle, putting it back in again can be difficult. Even if corrections are made, who remembers the small three-line expression of regret, compared to the front page main story that set the world alight with rank indignation, shock and alarm! Then “misremembering” something can be dangerous, since old memories can be dredged up, refreshed and corrected by fact-checkers.
Yet is all fact-checking based on an altruistic purpose? Many use it as a means to hold politicians to account for what they say and do. Yet is every politician held to the same level of scrutiny or is there an arms race with both sides of the political divide having their own fact-checkers. In the “good old days” the media was the fact-checker, yet did they deserve to have that power and did they really do a good job with what they had? In this book the activities of FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker are subjected to close scrutiny, although much of the book’s general findings and observations can be equally relevant to others.
It was a fascinating, engaging and informative read. If you are not inside the media or political “bubble” there is still a lot of great material awaiting your reading pleasure. For those who are inside, maybe it can be a bit too close for comfort or a bit too much of an eye-opener, for often those who are too close to a subject fail to really note what is going on under their noses.
Autamme.com
It is not just a case of interpretation and genuine errors being made in the rush to publish. Some media outlets and their contributors may be partisan or even been sold a pup by a source with a vested interest. What about statements and information from government? They should be neutral but in the rush to polish public perception and get their narrative clearly stated there is a risk that facts may be moveable, interpretable fixtures. Candidates, of course, deliver their statements on oath, don’t they…
The author looked behind the scenes at several media outlets, examining how they conducted their activities and considered how individual components in the machine functioned. How facts are managed, massaged and checked are also considered, looking at the whole situation from different sides. It is far from clear, one-sided and idealistic; a claim that can often be placed both on media organisations and on the fact-checkers.
Fact-checking should not be under-appreciated. In this ever-connected, hyper-speed world any incorrect facts, whether present by accident or intention, can be spread around the world in seconds. Social media storms can blow up and reputations be damaged. Once the genie is out of the bottle, putting it back in again can be difficult. Even if corrections are made, who remembers the small three-line expression of regret, compared to the front page main story that set the world alight with rank indignation, shock and alarm! Then “misremembering” something can be dangerous, since old memories can be dredged up, refreshed and corrected by fact-checkers.
Yet is all fact-checking based on an altruistic purpose? Many use it as a means to hold politicians to account for what they say and do. Yet is every politician held to the same level of scrutiny or is there an arms race with both sides of the political divide having their own fact-checkers. In the “good old days” the media was the fact-checker, yet did they deserve to have that power and did they really do a good job with what they had? In this book the activities of FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker are subjected to close scrutiny, although much of the book’s general findings and observations can be equally relevant to others.
It was a fascinating, engaging and informative read. If you are not inside the media or political “bubble” there is still a lot of great material awaiting your reading pleasure. For those who are inside, maybe it can be a bit too close for comfort or a bit too much of an eye-opener, for often those who are too close to a subject fail to really note what is going on under their noses.
Autamme.com
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews