I could easily do a column on the idea that illegal aliens are trying to cross the border to take advantage of DACA (which they can’t—DACA recipients have to have lived in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, been under 16 when they came here, and under 31 as of June 15, 2012), but I won’t.

I could write something (again—good Lord; why can people not believe facts??) on the idea that the national debt did not triple during Ronald Reagan’s administration (it did; gross national debt was $848 billion when Reagan was inaugurated, and $2.7 trillion when he left office), but frankly, economic discussions bore me most days. Besides, the onus for the debt also falls on Congress, and very few presidential administrations actually reduced our debt (those of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were the last to do so). It’s much more fun to spend into oblivion, apparently.

Or I could just talk about the people who make it possible for me to give you those facts with confidence: fact-checkers.

Yeah, I can hear some of you grumbling that fact-checkers are all liberal (they’re not, but keep believing that if it makes you feel better). But the more reliable of them are nonpartisan, independently funded, and include links to sources so that readers can judge for themselves how reliable that fact-check is.

Besides, facts don’t have a side; there are not separate facts for conservatives and liberals (maybe “facts,” a la Sean Spicer et al., but not facts). Interpretation of those facts can be biased, but the facts themselves are not. Everyone, say it with me and the ghost of sociologist and senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Every person is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. But seriously, if you want to complain about the percentage of Republicans found to have lied versus Democrats, or claim that the president never lies, I will break out Occam’s razor.

(And if you want to compare fact-checking services, RealClearPolitics just created a database for fact-checks by the big six fact-checkers—Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, New York Times, Washington Post and Weekly Standard. I haven’t had time to fully explore it yet, but it could prove useful.)

The Codex blog’s Kevin Wright examined fact-checking last January, noting the need for it, as “it seems that we’re much more likely to fall prey to an instance of fake news if it aligns with our pre-existing beliefs. This confirmation bias has always been a part of media-audience dynamics. It’s at the heart of today’s so-called post-truth politics, referring to a political discourse that relies less on verifiable facts and more on an appeal to the emotions and longstanding biases of the public at large—or as we say here on the Internet, ‘feels over reals.’ High-profile orators need only say things that cater to what their constituencies want to hear, even if it’s nowhere near the truth, with very few repercussions.”

I’m trying very hard to ignore that “feels over reals” bit … but boy, does that description sound familiar.

Of fact-checkers, Wright states: “Any media that asserts itself as an authority on absolute truth, however empirically sound, is subject to its own critique. After all, there isn’t a successful outlet out there that doesn’t claim to report honestly, so what makes these fact-checkers any different?”

Well, what distinguishes the best fact-checkers, as well as the more reliable members of the media, is that they are willing to admit their mistakes, correct them quickly, and will even reconsider past rulings when new information comes in. That and those source links make me trust PolitiFact and FactCheck.org the most. These services don’t really care what party someone identifies with; what’s important is whether what they’ve said is true or false.

PolitiFact, for example, recently published a fact-check on a statement by Giffords, the 501(c)(4) advocacy group named for former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, who survived a shooting in Tucson that killed six others. The group claimed in an online ad that House Speaker Paul Ryan “has blocked all action to strengthen our gun laws,” which PolitiFact found to be “mostly false.” As is often the problem with blanket statements, details can derail a claim, and saying he blocked “all” actions, especially without providing evidence, is just asking to be debunked.

And yes, PolitiFact has found some of the president’s statements to be true, such as China and Singapore imposing the death penalty on drug dealers (sure, only 170 of 541 claims checked as of Monday were found to be at least half true, but if it were truly liberal …). But yeah, it’s evil.

Oooohhhhh, so evil.

Fact-checkers are valuable in this climate, and political leanings should have no impact on rulings. That’s one of the reasons I’m not a fan of “liberal” or “conservative” fact-checkers, and a big reason some media organizations had a problem with the Weekly Standard’s fact-checker joining Facebook’s fake-news fighters (a project that itself has a lot of problems).

On the basis of the unfriendliness of the Standard’s website alone, I’m inclined to agree (every time I tried to access the main page for the fact-checks, I was greeted with a 404 error; there really should be a central archive that’s available with or without a subscription). Then there’s its explicitly partisan bent, whereas the other groups are nonpartisan; add in that large portions of its published fact-checks were attacks on other fact-checkers for perceived liberal bias, or were opinion columns (for that, I’m relying on a roundup from others, since I found only one fact-check fully accessible).

That’s a problem also seen on other sites like Zebra Fact Check and PolitiFact Bias, both of which class themselves as watchdogs of fact-checkers, as well as the blatantly liberal Media Matters for America. Perhaps if there were more original fact-checks across the political spectrum with linked sources rather than diatribes about other services, I might be more trusting.

But I guess it’s the schoolyard sniping that’s the attraction. However, facts are much better weapons than silly insults and purple nurples. A lot less fun to say, but still …

I can go to bed happy now that I’ve been able to work in purple nurples. It’s the little things, people!

---

A reminder for my Arkansas readers: We at the Democrat-Gazette need your letters! If you haven’t had something printed on the Voices page in the past 30 days, send me a letter about whatever’s on your mind, in 300 words or fewer, and send it by mail to Voices, P.O. Box 2221, Little Rock, Ark. 72203; by email to voices@arkansasonline.com; or through our Voices form.

Remember, keep it clean, don’t personally insult other readers, no personal or business disputes, and keep in mind that I fact-check (duh … what was this column about?).

Thank you!