What Is Fact, My Friends?

Filed under:Language Barrier,Need a Good Editor? — posted by Anwyn on May 24, 2007 @ 9:40 pm

Gerard Van der Leun discusses the absence of fact checking in publishing. I’m shocked, shocked, that there are copy editors out there less rigorous and stringent about fact checking than I am.

No I’m not. What I am surprised at is the existence of a group called “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America” and its status as a CBS shareholder. This group is about to get all demanding and shirty with Jimmy Carter about little things like “errors” about the Middle East in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Van der Leun notes:

The Carter book is chock-a-block full of lies and distortions and weasel phrases that are the hallmark of the sad and irritating career of the worst President the United States has had and the worst it is likely to have. But lies are as much a part of Carter’s post-Whitehouse career as the phrase “I’ll never lie to you” was part of his initial appeal. That numerous associates of the risible “Carter Center” have resigned because this time the lies were too thick to be swallowed smoothly in exchange for a check is well documented.

But to think that Simon & Schuster are going to spend one penny on a “fact-checking” system or a “code of ethics” is simply foolish. Book publishers don’t do that and not because, as was stated in the same article:

“It’s not realistic,” the editor in chief of Publishers Weekly, Sara Nelson, said. The call for publishers to have “full-on fact checking” does not make economic sense, she said, as they publish a lot of books.

Publishers won’t do it because they not only don’t have to (it would be costly, but not nearly as much as the millions they lavish on their pet authors), but because fact-checking our many fanciful and forthrightly lying authors would not be in the publishers’ interests.

It’s not totally economic. Many facts can be checked in 30 seconds of web searching and probably wouldn’t add that much to the money being paid a freelance copy editor, and as Van der Leun points out, even at maximum expense it couldn’t compete with millions paid to celebrity authors. The non-economic problem is twofold: even for the “attack dog” copy editors Van der Leun mentions, it’s not realistic to expect us to expend the mental energy to question every fact in the book, which leaves us checking only the ones we know or sense to be wrong. Which leads us to the second part of the problem. Van der Leun:

Publishers know when authors are lying but, as long as the lies map to the publishing industry’s internal view of itself, that’s just fine with them. It’s not about being “true,” but being “true to your school.”

I disagree. It’s worse than that: in a book with ideological slant that caters to the editors’ worldview, they can no longer tell fact from opinion or even from fiction, because if lies fit in nicely in with their worldview then, looping back to the first part of the problem, it does not occur to the editor to question the “fact,” much less check it. Something has to seem wrong before it gets checked; “if it sounds good, print it” becomes the de facto rule.

Celebrity authors are all well and good; the author as luminary in the editors’ worldview just makes it that much more unlikely that they will question his facts. Fact checking exists, but a fact needs to seem like it should be checked before it will be. Simple as that. If the distortions and lies are simply part of the worldview a particular editor has been listening to for years, they pass as part of the wallpaper, never noticed or remarked.


  1. More Thoughts on Publishing, and Fact Checking (UPDATE)…

    Since my post below about book-publisher snobbery attracted some comments, let me send you over to some related thoughts at American Digest. There, Gerard Vanderleun says that in modern book publishing–especially when it comes to books by big names li…

    Trackback by JunkYardBlog — May 24, 2007 @ 11:19 pm

  2. The main difference between fact checking of your writing versus their writing? You are writing to give us some real information, not hand us an agitprop piece designed to re-inflate the badly deflated public image of a political has-been.

    PS: Have you tried out the new on-line LOTR game? Not quite canonical, but it is pretty, a lot of fun, and it has a lot of players!

    Comment by fallohide — May 25, 2007 @ 10:42 am

  3. Thanks for the compliment, Fallohide, but I meant my fact checking of other people’s writing–I am a freelance copy editor and so can relate a little to Vanderleun’s article.

    ‘Fraid I don’t have time for the LOTR online game–glad it’s fun.

    Comment by Anwyn — May 25, 2007 @ 11:28 am

  4. Do I dare to bring up such frivolity as “A Million Little Pieces”? I find it comical that the guy goes on Oprah to get drilled, while main-stream media distorts the truth on a daily basis, not to mention out-right lying. Dan Rather anyone?

    Comment by thelmajoy — May 29, 2007 @ 7:47 am

  5. Yeah, I thought about Frey as I was writing this. I still maintain he deserved all the drilling he got, including his agent ditching him, and that Oprah narrowly avoided a loss of some of *her* reputation by initially backing him before flipping her opinion. Personal memoirs are that much more difficult to fact-check than policy/opinion screeds, but big whoppers like how much time he spent in jail, at least, should have been spot-checked. The bigger the lies, though, the more likely somebody knows it’s a lie and will come along and blow the whistle, like they did on Frey. When you walk a line skirting public debate, like Carter, or bring out a lie that so many thousands of people are ready and willing to swallow, like Rather, it’s harder.

    Comment by Anwyn — May 29, 2007 @ 9:39 am

  6. More Devil’s Advocate: Ace responds……

    …not to me so much as to J-Pod, which makes me all sad and mopey because I at least linked to Ace and JPod was a no-linkydink. …the main issue is whether the stories are true, but given the fact……

    Trackback by JunkYardBlog — July 26, 2007 @ 2:48 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace