Podcast Summary: "If Books Could Kill" - Episode: "Glenn Kessler Retire B*tch [TEASER]"

Title: If Books Could Kill
Hosts: Michael Hobbes & Peter Shamshiri
Episode: Glenn Kessler Retire B*tch [TEASER]
Release Date: September 26, 2024
Description: The airport bestsellers that captured our hearts and ruined our minds

Introduction to Fact-Checking and Glenn Kessler

[00:00 - 00:19]
Peter Shamshiri and Michael Hobbes open the episode with a dynamic and somewhat contentious discussion about fact-checking. They immediately dive into the topic, hinting at their critical stance towards Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's fact checker.

Peter: "This is an episode about the institution of fact checking. And our little entry point is Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact checker."
Michael: "What if I just said, yeah, he's a fact checker for the Washington Post, and then you just said, this needs context."
Timestamp: [00:19]

The Evolution of Fact-Checking

[00:19 - 04:23]
Peter provides a historical overview of fact-checking, tracing its roots back to 2004 with Glenn Kessler's efforts. They discuss how fact-checking emerged as a response to increasing misinformation, particularly during political events like Zell Miller's speech at the Republican National Convention.

Peter: "The history of fact checking kind of is the history of Glenn Kessler."
Michael: "No one had ever thought to check a fact before Glenn came around."
Timestamp: [01:13]

They delve into the establishment of Fact-Checking departments across major news organizations, highlighting PolitiFact and The New York Times' fact-checking desks, culminating in Glenn Kessler's takeover of the Washington Post's Fact Checker column in 2011.

Peter: "Glenn Kessler himself says that the Pinocchio ratings... he kept."
Michael: "That's his idea of a standard metric."
Timestamp: [04:23]

Introducing the Pinocchio Rating System

[04:23 - 07:43]
The hosts explore Kessler's Pinocchio rating system, a metaphorical measure ranging from one to four Pinocchios to denote the severity of falsehoods in political statements. They critically assess the system’s objectivity and effectiveness in measuring truthfulness.

Peter: "This is an objective metric of whether or not somebody's lying."
Michael: "It's a reverse restaurant review ranging from one Pinocchio to four Pinocchios a whopper."
Timestamp: [04:35]

They discuss the implications of such ratings, questioning whether the system fairly represents political discourse or merely simplifies complex statements into reductive scores.

Peter: "If you're only choosing their lies, every politician is going to look equally dishonest."
Michael: "If you did, you would realize that I am the moron."
Timestamp: [05:17]

Structural Weaknesses in Fact-Checking

[07:43 - 11:22]
Shifting focus, Peter and Michael critique the structural weaknesses of fact-checking, using Glenn Kessler as a primary example. They assert that fact-checkers often engage in selective pedantry, focusing on literal interpretations rather than meaningful truth.

Peter: "The first category is selectively weaponized pedantry."
Michael: "Glenn is saying the words themselves are fine, but the words are bad."
Timestamp: [09:21]

Case Study: Bernie Sanders' Homelessness Statement

[09:21 - 13:14]
The hosts analyze Kessler’s fact-check of Bernie Sanders' claim regarding homelessness, where Sanders stated, “we will not give tax breaks to billionaires when half a million Americans sleep out on the streets.”

Michael: "Bernie Sanders, drop out. You have humiliated yourself."
Peter: "It's hard to even call this dishonest."
Timestamp: [10:03]

They debate whether Kessler's focus on the technicality that not all homeless individuals are literally sleeping on the streets undermines the rhetorical impact of Sanders' statement.

Peter: "Bernie may not have meant that on a specific night. He may have meant that habitually."
Michael: "If someone was like, oh, a lot of them are actually in cars... What are you talking about?"
Timestamp: [13:14]

Debunking the Fact-Check: Context vs. Pedantry

[13:14 - 17:43]
Peter and Michael argue that Kessler’s approach often misses the broader context, reducing nuanced statements to pedantic critiques. They highlight the challenge in distinguishing between literal falsehoods and meaningful exaggerations used for rhetorical effect.

Peter: "He includes the weasel words."
Michael: "We're seeing both sides of this. One is demand for pedantry and one is demand for context."
Timestamp: [14:51]

Amy Gardner's Fact-Check of Joe Biden

[16:06 - 18:13]
The conversation shifts to Amy Gardner’s fact-check of Joe Biden’s statement about Donald Trump refusing to accept election results. Peter criticizes Gardner for missing the broader implications of Trump's behavior, suggesting that the fact-checker’s narrow focus can inadvertently spread misinformation.

Peter: "You're correcting an opinionated statement."
Michael: "From time to time, you're just gonna get over your skis because you're searching for it."
Timestamp: [17:43]

Fact-Checking True Statements as False

[18:13 - 22:05]
They explore instances where Kessler designates true statements as false, highlighting the problematic nature of such fact-checks. Examples include Bernie Sanders’ claims about the child tax credit and wealth inequality, where the hosts argue that Kessler distorts facts by prioritizing technical accuracy over substantive truth.

Michael: "Glenn is essentially saying, well, it's only true if you count debt."
Peter: "The bottom half of US families own essentially no wealth on net because debts cancel out whatever small assets they may have."
Timestamp: [23:07]

Notable Quote:
Peter: "Glenn is doing this off the dome, to be fair."
Michael: "You can fire your research staff. I can do this off the dome. I will save you millions."
Timestamp: [25:24]

Political Punditry Masquerading as Fact-Checking

[31:03 - 35:59]
Peter and Michael criticize Kessler for interjecting political opinion into fact-checking, particularly in cases like Mitt Romney being labeled a "corporate raider." They argue that Kessler’s interpretations go beyond fact-checking into punditry, undermining the objectivity that fact-checking is supposed to uphold.

Peter: "He is just doing political punditry here."
Michael: "This is like, that's a whopper."
Timestamp: [34:35]

Notable Quote:
Peter: "This is an op ed column, right? He's like, is it fair to call Mitt Romney a corporate raider? No, I think private equity is an important part of the economy."
Michael: "America is the greatest country in the world. Let's get that straight."
Timestamp: [35:59]

Conclusion: The Future of Fact-Checking

[35:59 - End]
Peter and Michael wrap up the teaser by emphasizing the growing skepticism towards traditional fact-checking institutions like the Washington Post under Glenn Kessler. They suggest that fact-checking has become less of an objective tool for accountability and more of a battleground for political narratives.

Peter: "This gets four Pinocchios."
Michael: "This is another one of these ones where it's like just kind of true, but he's sort of making it more technical and somehow gives it the highest rating."
Timestamp: [35:36]

Key Takeaways

1. Fact-Checking Evolution: Fact-checking emerged as a crucial journalistic tool in the early 2000s, with Glenn Kessler playing a significant role in its institutionalization.
2. Pinocchio Rating System: Kessler's system aims to quantify falsehoods but is criticized for oversimplifying complex statements.
3. Selective Pedantry: Fact-checkers often focus on literal accuracy, potentially missing the broader context and intent behind political statements.
4. Mislabeling True Statements: Instances where true statements are flagged as false highlight the subjective nature of some fact-checking practices.
5. Punditry vs. Fact-Checking: The blending of political opinion with factual analysis undermines the credibility of fact-checking as an objective tool.
6. Growing Skepticism: The episode underscores increasing doubts about the objectivity and reliability of prominent fact-checkers like Glenn Kessler.

Notable Quotes with Attribution

• Peter: "The history of fact checking kind of is the history of Glenn Kessler."
  Timestamp: [01:13]

• Michael: "Bernie Sanders, drop out. You have humiliated yourself."
  Timestamp: [10:03]

• Peter: "If you're only choosing their lies, every politician is going to look equally dishonest."
  Timestamp: [05:17]

• Michael: "Glenn is essentially saying, well, it's only true if you count debt."
  Timestamp: [23:07]

• Peter: "This is an op ed column, right? He's like, is it fair to call Mitt Romney a corporate raider? No, I think private equity is an important part of the economy."
  Timestamp: [35:59]

Final Thoughts

In this teaser episode, Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri critically examine the role of fact-checking in modern journalism, using Glenn Kessler's Washington Post column as a focal point. They argue that while fact-checking was initially established to enhance accountability, it has become mired in pedantry and subjective interpretations, thus diminishing its effectiveness. The hosts encourage listeners to question the objectivity of fact-checkers and consider the broader implications of their methodologies on public discourse and political accountability.