alredford

You absolutely are more than stenographers. I think holding people with power accountable is incredibly important. To me, fact-checking just seems so much more active than previous trends in journalism. This isn't Edward R. Murrow and George McCarthy -- this is day in, day out examination of the statements of people in public life. Seems like a huge change!

Thanks so much for doing this AMA. I love the work you do and I think it raises some fascinating questions about how journalism has changed.

Question 1: Doesn't fact-checking take journalists out of the spectator stands and move them onto the playing field as referees? This seems to be a big (and pretty unnoticed) change from traditional journalism.

Question 2: How do you distinguish between the forest and the trees? For example, say some pundit or politician uses a wacky and innacurate analogy, but the broader point she is trying to make is spot-on. How do you balance the specific details of a statement with the broader message the speaker intents to make?