Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks

[TU Curmudgeon]

From Associated Press

Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks
​

NEW YORK (AP) — A Duke University team expects to have a product available for election year that will allow television networks to offer real-time fact checks onscreen when a politician makes a questionable claim during a speech or debate.

The mystery is whether any network will choose to use it.

The response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 8 speech on border security illustrated how fact-checking is likely to be an issue over the next two years. Networks briefly considered not airing Trump live and several analysts contested some of his statements afterward, but nobody questioned him while he was speaking.

Duke already offers an app, developed by professor and Politifact founder Bill Adair, that directs users to online fact checks during political events. A similar product has been tested for television, but is still not complete.

COMMENT:-

If/when they get this thing working accurately, it will spell the **D*O*O*M** of modern American politics. Can you imagine the marque under the speaker's picture running along the lines of

"That last statement is false. That was the __[fill in the blank]__ false statement of this speaker so far. This speaker has been making false statements at the rate of __[fill in the blank]__ per hour in this broadcast.".
​

Why that might even mean that politicians would have to make a choice between saying nothing or telling the truth.
​

 

[Harshaw]

If/when they get this thing working accurately, it will spell the **D*O*O*M** of modern American politics.

Do you think this will remain in use ONLY in American politics?

 

[NeverTrump]

From Associated Press

Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks
​

NEW YORK (AP) — A Duke University team expects to have a product available for election year that will allow television networks to offer real-time fact checks onscreen when a politician makes a questionable claim during a speech or debate.

The mystery is whether any network will choose to use it.

The response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 8 speech on border security illustrated how fact-checking is likely to be an issue over the next two years. Networks briefly considered not airing Trump live and several analysts contested some of his statements afterward, but nobody questioned him while he was speaking.

Duke already offers an app, developed by professor and Politifact founder Bill Adair, that directs users to online fact checks during political events. A similar product has been tested for television, but is still not complete.

COMMENT:-

If/when they get this thing working accurately, it will spell the **D*O*O*M** of modern American politics. Can you imagine the marque under the speaker's picture running along the lines of

"That last statement is false. That was the __[fill in the blank]__ false statement of this speaker so far. This speaker has been making false statements at the rate of __[fill in the blank]__ per hour in this broadcast.".
​

Why that might even mean that politicians would have to make a choice between saying nothing or telling the truth.
​

This is a superb idea. The next generation is gonna ask, WTF was wrong with us?

 

[Xelor]

From Associated Press

Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks
​

NEW YORK (AP) — A Duke University team expects to have a product available for election year that will allow television networks to offer real-time fact checks onscreen when a politician makes a questionable claim during a speech or debate.

The mystery is whether any network will choose to use it.

The response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 8 speech on border security illustrated how fact-checking is likely to be an issue over the next two years. Networks briefly considered not airing Trump live and several analysts contested some of his statements afterward, but nobody questioned him while he was speaking.

Duke already offers an app, developed by professor and Politifact founder Bill Adair, that directs users to online fact checks during political events. A similar product has been tested for television, but is still not complete.

COMMENT:-

If/when they get this thing working accurately, it will spell the **D*O*O*M** of modern American politics. Can you imagine the marque under the speaker's picture running along the lines of

"That last statement is false. That was the __[fill in the blank]__ false statement of this speaker so far. This speaker has been making false statements at the rate of __[fill in the blank]__ per hour in this broadcast.".
​

Why that might even mean that politicians would have to make a choice between saying nothing or telling the truth.
​

Red:
One thing that strikes me as not at all mysterious is that Fox won't implement any such tool that performs objective, nonpartisan fact-checking.

 

[buck]

I like the idea in theory, but who will be entering information on whether something is a lie.. and how accurate will the input be. Sometimes a lie is a matter pf perspective and subject to biases of the individual - on both sides.

Will the politician be aware that they were alleged to have lied and be able to respond in real time to provide details why they feel it is not a lie.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I don't think this will matter much because what "facts" depends on who is delivering them. People are used to the echo chambers now.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Do you think this will remain in use ONLY in American politics?

Would it matter?

How long do you think the current style of politics could continue if the word "LIE" was flashed on the TV screen every time a politician told an untruth?

On the other hand, it appears that TV as a form of political advertising/propaganda is on the way out and that the political parties will be concentrating on "social media" and the Internet.

This has two really big advantages:

1. it's a whole lot cheaper per "effective exposure"; and
2. it allows specific "truth variants" to be provided to specific target groups (without making it really obvious what you are doing).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is a superb idea. The next generation is gonna ask, WTF was wrong with us?

The "next generation" will be receiving "sub-set specific" "truth variants" and will be as prone to accepting those as the current generation is - possibly even more so.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Red:
One thing that strikes me as not at all mysterious is that Fox won't implement any such tool that performs objective, nonpartisan fact-checking.

It wouldn't surprise me if FOX News did implement their own improved version of the tool that performs objective, nonpartisan fact-checking. Of course, their definitions of "objective", "non-partisan", "fact", and "checking" might not be the same as the ones that you or I would use.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I like the idea in theory, but who will be entering information on whether something is a lie.. and how accurate will the input be. Sometimes a lie is a matter pf perspective and subject to biases of the individual - on both sides.

Good points.

Will the politician be aware that they were alleged to have lied and be able to respond in real time to provide details why they feel it is not a lie.

You mean sort of like a loud buzzer going off whenever the politician says something that isn't true?

I suspect that very few people would stay tuned much past the first 10 minutes due to the constant sounding of the buzzer (and the politician had better have a VERY short piece that they intended to deliver because of the amount of time it would take to explain why the buzzer went of, and then to explain why the buzzer went off while they were explaining why the buzzer went off, and then to explain why the buzzer went off while they were explaining why the buzzer went off while they were explaining why the buzzer went off while they were explaining why the buzzer went off, and then to explain ...

Heaven help the viewing audience if they ever started sounding the buzzer whenever a politician "sort of forgot" to include relevant information that "sort of pointed out" that whatever it was they said they were going to work for was not quite as binding as they said it was.

 

[Harshaw]

Would it matter?

You were saying it would be huge for American politics, but it certainly won't stay in the US. It'll be picked up by everyone everywhere.

Why would you ask if that "matters"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You were saying it would be huge for American politics, but it certainly won't stay in the US. It'll be picked up by everyone everywhere.

Why would you ask if that "matters"?

Because I was addressing an audience that is primarily American.

I won't go so far as to say that most of the people on DP simply don't care about anything that isn't DIRECTLY associate with the United States of America, but some are (and the percentage in the general population is likely higher).

Now, if I were to ask "Would instant fact check have any impact on the politics of Baluchistan?", and to ask that question here, how far off 100% of the total do you think the responses of "Who cares?" be? [Bets with 0 as the leading number and all significant numbers three places to the right of the decimal point will not be accepted.]

 

[Verax]

Doesn't matter. People will just say the fact checkers are wrong.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Doesn't matter. People will just say the fact checkers are wrong.

That too.

It's the corollary of "information bias" where the stuff that you hear that you agree with is assumed to be true that the stuff that you hear that you do NOT agree with is assumed to be false.

Once a significant enough portion of the populace buys into "information bias" on a knee jerk basis, then "actual truth" becomes irrelevant because you are only preaching to the choir REGARDLESS of what you say.

A point could be made that a country would be better off with a government made up of ACKNOWLEDGED laughable buffoons than it would with a government made up of UNACKNOWLEDGED laughable buffoons. (Of course, one made up of knowledgeable and conscientious people who are actually trying to reach a consensus on what is actually in the best interests of the people of the country would be even more preferable - but one shouldn't ask for miracles, should one?)