Washington Post columnist Meghan McArdle has offered a critical assessment of fact-checkers' effectiveness during the Trump era. In a recent column, McArdle suggests that despite their efforts, fact-checkers have struggled to significantly impact public opinion.
According to Fox News, McArdle, a known critic of Trump, argues that those attempting to combat Trump's alleged "disinformation" have often confused their opinions with objective facts.
The columnist points out that after eight years of what she terms "all-out disinformation warfare," Trump's approval ratings have remained relatively stable. In contrast, she notes that public trust in institutions such as academia and journalism has declined. This observation leads McArdle to question the overall impact of fact-checking efforts during Trump's political career.
McArdle begins her critique by outlining the idealized mission of fact-checkers during the Trump era. She describes their goal as dedicating themselves to identifying and correcting misinformation on the internet, with a particular focus on Trump's statements. However, she suggests that this mission has not been entirely successful.
While acknowledging that some fact-checking efforts have been useful, particularly in addressing Trump's more exaggerated claims, McArdle argues that the broader initiative has been marred by overreach. She points out instances where fact-checkers have acted as censors, sometimes suppressing information that later proved to be true while spreading information that turned out to be false.
The columnist provides specific examples of such missteps, including the initial dismissal of the lab leak theory regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the handling of Hunter Biden's laptop story. According to McArdle, these instances have undermined the credibility of fact-checkers and their institutions.
McArdle's column suggests that the fact-checking community's approach has had unintended consequences on public discourse and trust in institutions. She argues that repeated failures to accurately distinguish between fact and opinion have led to increased skepticism among voters towards fact-checkers and the institutions they represent.
The author cites a recent incident involving European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton and Elon Musk as an example of misguided attempts to control information flow. McArdle argues that such interventions often prove ineffective and may even backfire, potentially benefiting those they aim to challenge.
McArdle writes:
The episode sums up all the ways in which the 'disinformation' specialty has gone wrong with Trump: the arrogance, the confusion of opinion with legal or empirical fact, the destroy-the-village-in-order-to-save-it attempts to shore up democracy by clamping down on political speech. Not to mention the ineffectiveness of it all.
In her analysis, McArdle calls for a reevaluation of fact-checking practices. She suggests that the current approach, which she characterizes as sometimes arrogant and overreaching, has not achieved its intended goals. Instead, she argues, it may have contributed to a decline in trust in academic and journalistic institutions.
The columnist's critique extends to what she perceives as attempts to censor political speech under the guise of protecting democracy. McArdle argues that such efforts, rather than strengthening democratic discourse, may actually undermine it by limiting the free exchange of ideas.
She also points out that despite repeated failures, many in the fact-checking community have not shown sufficient humility or willingness to adapt their methods. This persistence in the face of ineffectiveness, McArdle suggests, has further eroded public confidence in fact-checking efforts.
Meghan McArdle's column in the Washington Post offers a critical assessment of fact-checking efforts during the Trump era. She argues that these efforts have often been ineffective and sometimes counterproductive. McArdle suggests that fact-checkers have, at times, confused opinion with fact, engaged in censorship, and failed to significantly impact public opinion. The columnist calls for a reevaluation of fact-checking practices, highlighting the need for greater humility and a more nuanced approach to distinguishing between fact and opinion in political discourse.
