Reality-checking journalism has by no means been accurately effortless.
Our standard work days include conquering a series of road blocks: We field questions from visitors seeking the facts on matters large and small. We dig for challenging-to-find info more than the web and keep track of down gurus to job interview more than the cell phone. We achieve out to push secretaries and spokespeople, trying to find their comments and insights. We produce the truth-checks and get them by way of a rigorous enhancing system with several revisions. We list and website link to all of our resources so visitors can review our operate for by themselves. We energetically debate rankings on our Real truth-O-Meter.
Immediately after we publish, there’s nonetheless additional debate. Some men and women concur with our results, while other folks let us know particularly why they disagree. The most common criticism is that we ended up nitpickers, or that we skipped the forest for the trees, or that we really should have given it a distinct ranking. Others claim we had been biased all along, or that actuality-checking by itself will make no variance anyway.
These critiques and disagreements are not unreasonable. But lately, acceptable disagreement