A Few Spelling Variations

Let's face it: it's highly embarrassing to be caught spelling somebody's name wrong. Especially when you know or talk about someone often enough that you should have figured it out. For all of the media's focus on accuracy and fact-checking, though, they sure managed to screw up a very important name: Ghaddafi. Or, sorry, Qaddafi; Gadhafi; or was it Kaddafi?

Why can't anyone agree on how to spell the dead dictator's name? According to Poynter.org, in 1986 a syndicated columnist named Cecil Adams found at least nine different spellings for the name, the most exotic and confusing spelling jointly attributed to the Library of Congress and the Middle East Studies Association: Qadhdhafi.

To be fair, part of the problem is translating Arabic script into the English alphabet. Adams explained that there are several sounds in the name that don't have an exact English counterpart, and for a while, the Libyan leader wasn't concerned enough to straighten anything out. However, in May of 1986, the colonel made his feelings known when he responded to a letter from second graders at Maxfield Magnet School in Saint Paul, Minnesota. While he signed his name to his response in Arabic script, under it was typed "Moammar El-Gadhafi". News organizations announced they would make the switch as soon as the signature was made public.

Well, most of them didn't. This debate has gone to live on past his death, and it's a wonder that the media didn't simply check their facts from the start.

Photo/Bryan Mason at creativecommons.org

Read more...

Should Viewers Be Fact-Checkers?

In the Washington Monthly, an article by Steve Benen deals with TV fact-checking.

"One of the Sunday shows invites a high-profile guest to discuss current events. The guest responds to pointed questions, and makes a variety of claims and arguments. Some of those claims and arguments will be accurate, and some won't. For the news consumer watching at home, the information gleaned from the interview is only useful if he/she knows whether the guest's comments are factual."

"With that in mind, the Sunday shows have a couple of choices. First, hosts can become knowledgeable about the subject matter and fact-check the guests' claims during the program. Second, the shows can partner with independent fact-checkers like This Week has done with PolitiFact. Or third, some combination of the two."

When these concepts were introduced to David Gregory, host of NBC's Meet the Press, he responded that it was an "interesting idea," but not one the NBC show will be emulating. "People can fact-check Meet the Press every week on their own terms."

Benen poses this: "'Gregory's comments suggest a more traditional approach: let viewers figure things out on their own terms. Why separate fact from fiction for news consumers when they can do that on their own?'"

I have always trusted in the media to tell the truth, but on these talks shows how is that possible if the guest doesn't answer questions truthfully?

I certainly don't have the time or interest in becoming a fact-checker.

Should independent fact-checkers be hired to do the work?

Should programs check facts during their broadcasts, or is that even possible?

Read more...