Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan gave a speech at the Republican National Convention last Wednesday that was notable not only for its forceful and mostly well-received articulation of a conservative political agenda, but also for some factual inaccuracies. In the days after the speech, media coverage of the convention emphasized that while the Internet has afforded a significant increase in the number and efficiency of fact-checking organizations, their impact remains limited. We believe this lack of attention to concrete facts in a nationally broadcast speech is deplorable, and we advocate an increase in fact-checking standards in politics in general.
Political pundits, fact-checkers and bloggers across the nation have particularly questioned Ryan's anecdote about a General Motors plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wis. Ryan noted that President Obama, while still a candidate, visited the plant and claimed, "I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another 100 years." Ryan continued, "That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
The Tampa Bay Times-run website Politifact.com ruled differently, pointing out that the plant in Janesville closed in December 2008, a month before Obama took office. "Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise," the fact-checkers said, rating his statement as "False."
Ryan is not the only candidate whose statements have been called into question. Mitt Romney, his partner in the campaign, is under fire as well. As the New York Times noted this week, Romney's first television advertisement included a clip of Obama saying as a candidate in 2008, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." Then-candidate Obama, however, was actually quoting the words of his opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. For this claim, the Romney campaign earned a Politifact grade of "Pants on Fire."
In fact, neither campaign has a record free from charges of factual distortion. This summer, the Obama campaign produced an advertisement claiming that Romney "backed a law that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest." Factcheck.org, a project from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, accused the Obama campaign of twisting Mitt Romney's stance on abortion, as Romney has made clear on several occasions that he is opposed to abortion except in instances of rape and incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.
Campaigns or outside organizations that use ads with false information should be put to task. There is a significant difference between presenting information with a partisan spin and giving statements that are known to be false. During the RNC, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse stated, "We're not going let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." This attitude is misguided and dangerous at best. In an election cycle where there are so many substantive differences between candidates and platforms, it is more important than ever that voters have access to reliable and accurate information.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
