New source of fact-checking

I’m not blind to the bias in all sources of news. Such is the nature of people that I would question any claim of an unbiased news source. That said, when a new fact-checking operation comes around (to compliment the FactCheck and PolitiFact sources I currently use), I’m interested in seeing what I can learn from the source. In the case of the Washington Post’s Fact-Checker, I’m cautiously optimistic that I’ll be able to use the site when researching my own political rants and spews.

Now why would I think after just a first look that I might be able to use WaPo fact-checker? Well, one of the first news items they cover is contrary to the normal WaPo political stance – they are debunking’s criticisms of General Petraeus’ Iraq status report. I haven’t checked the Washington Post home page, but I’m pretty sure if you look around you can find some criticism of Gen. Petraeus from the newspaper, so when the fact-checking section takes steps to defend the General, it at least offers some hope that the writers for the section will do a good job.

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts.
While some of the facts and statistics cited by General Petraeus can legitimately be questioned and debated, offers only partial support for such a sweeping accusation. The data they do cite is itself open to challenge.

The fact-checkers continue to break down the criticisms of Gen. Petraeus, pointing out a number of flaws in their claims. The entire disection of the anti-war status claims is worth reading, no matter what side of the war debate you fall on.

I hope the site can continue to provide worthwhile analysis in the future. I know I’ll be checking back to see how things roll in the future.

[tags]Washington Post, WaPo, Washington Post Fact Checker, Fact checking[/tags]