Excellent and important story... thank you. I wrote to Mr. Gregory, his producer and to ABC about this. ABC and This Week's decision to fact check (and publish) its guests’ on-air statements is a milestone in broadcast journalism; it is an important extension of journalistic principle and best practice. I sincerely hope that the other major Sunday morning shows embrace the policy.

As another commenter said, it would be easy to display real-time fact checking during these programs, simply by taping the interview and panel segments on Saturday morning, and give the fact-checkers 24 hours to ply their trade. I'd happily give up the live aspect of these shows in exchange for higher quality information. The show intro could be broadcast live to add any late-breaking information.

But fact checking cannot serve as a substitute for a highly-prepared host. It seems that too many of these TV hosts go into their shows completely unprepared to challenge the assertions of their guests. By contrast, Rachel Maddow interviews her guests armed with seemingly endless research and knowledge of her subject... and because of that her interviews tend to be far more satisfying and enlightening. The Sunday morning talkers would greatly benefit by following her example.

Hey, B, if one can make statistics conform to any lie one wishes to tell, then I'm quite sure these people will figure out a way to make "facts" lie.

Even if I do not check out foreign news sources, I can't help but agree with all Mr. Douglas wrote. For at least two generations I have watched "journalists" who wouldn't recognize truth if it jumped out and bit them. Plus, I'd say that that includes Woodward, Bernstein and Bradley! Not to mention that many of them lie for profit or fame.

Even Russert (whose son reported on Usher for Nightly News tonight) was really all about the show. His "hard-hitting" style often focused on irrelevancies. It should have been child's play to bring down W, with a combination of truth and his power, but he just let the show go on.

It would have been interesting to listen to James Taranto's (Best of the Web Today) thoughts on fact checking. He regularly disputes the so called fact checking done by these groups.

With all the liberals on MTP, Mike Pence is cited on OTM. Yeah, OK..I think I see where they guys are coming from. More bias is just what we need.

It will be interesting to see which guests choose MTP and shun This Week. Someone should keep a record.

Another example of how low the bar is today for "reporters"? Today, on CNN, the on-air talent asked a good question of the on-site reporter in the Gulf. How much oil can the tanker that will be siphoning up the oil from the gushing leak hold? The journalist hemmed and hawed and said "thousands". He obviously didn't know. It never occurred to him to find out. Yet it's hard to imagine a simpler or more logical question. Not to blow my own horn too much, but after reading that the estimates of how much oil has been gushing out could be orders of magnitude above the official estimates, it occurred to me that the oil being siphoned up would be one measure, since the tanker has a finite capacity. I'm no genius. But the 5 W's that used to be taught to print journalists are not, apparently, taught to the highly paid reporters who theoretically report the "news".

Sorry for the rant, but he/said "journalism" has driven me almost completely away from American television (which I do surf for breaking news) because it has become little more than a platform for people to lie with impunity and for the same incestuous in group to opine on what x, y or z means.

(And, why, exactly, is it sooooo important for us to know what some politician will be saying in a speech later in the day. And what that will mean. Would democracy suffer if we waited to talk about a speech until after it is given?)

At best Tapper was ingenuous; at worst, he was lying. The hosts know what questions they are going to ask. They know who they are going to interview. And they know what those people are going to say in return - since they say it repeatedly, in every medium.

Tapper and the others should already have checked the facts and have them on hand. Not enough time? Skip the political horse race questions, the guessing about what somebody else will say or do. Focus on one or two important issues and engage the guest.

I watch a fair amount of foreign television (France's TV5, the Beeb, a bit of DW, RAI and a variety of LatAm networks.) I frequently see news reports, to say nothing of interviews, that go on for 10 minutes or more - versus the 30 seconds all of our networks assume is the limit of an American viewer's attention. Even the Univision & Telemundo evening broadcasts contain more news than ABC, NBC and CBS combined.

What "journalists" like Tapper have decided and accepted is that journalism consists of talking to people on both sides of the issues, that "facts" do not exist.

This is not simply a Sunday morning issue.

Example: a week or so ago, CNN did a news segment on charter schools. Do they work? "He" said they worked. "She" said they didn't.

Now, a number of studies have been done on charter schools vs. public schools. To uncover the facts requires only two things: Google and time.

But not one single American network is interested in, or willing to pay, as far as I can tell, anybody (even some newly minted BA willing to work for free) to do the research and feed it to the on-air "talent".

i have to burst even the most insignificant of bubbles:

VH1's pop-up video is/was often untrue; i know this because several of the pop-up "facts" on my band 4 Non Blondes' video for our hit song "What's Up?" were completely untrue! and I am guessing we weren't the only ones who were misrepresented.

*sigh* ... can't even trust pop-up video :(

love your show though!

With a tape delay there's no reason these talking head shows couldn't be fact checked in real time (ala Popup video). No reason except no pundit or politician would appear on the shows if they couldn't lie with abandon.

I am glad to see that "On the Media" has joined in the discussion on checking the facts. It took college students to get people too check that facts ....

Chas Danner and Paul Breer are my hero's ...

ABOUT TIME!!!

The arrogance of these 'news' programs under the guise of 'doing their best' to ensure facts are correct.

Jack Tapper is smart to embrace this move, and although he'll be moving on, the network show can become the showcase and go-to program for truly 'no spin' content that O'Reilly (with a straight face) clams for his wildly partisan 'show.'

Please continue to push for the need for fact-checking.

I agree completely that the news media should be much more aggressive in exposing misleading statements made by the Executive or Congressional branch representatives. However, what I sense is that since the watershed interview Dan Rather had with candiate GHWBush in '88 and the subsequent fallout, TV news interviewers became too soft for fear of alienating the interviewee. Has anyone ever listened to the BBC interview one of their PM's? No holds barred reporting is what we need as long as the questions are intelligent and answers can be backed up by facts. All too often interviewees are allowed to just keep giving their "stock" answer using the tactic that you say it enough, it will become fact. Cheney practices exactly that and no one ever calls him onthe carpet for it. And politicians wonder why the public is apathetic!

Journalists are not the only ones capable of fact-checking. Let's remember that many news/documentary units use to (maybe some still do, like NPR?) have LIBRARIANS on staff as both researchers and fact checkers.

I agree with everything you guest says. I think it is up to the media organizations to check the fact and not let their guests just say anything as if a fact when in fact it might not be a fact!!

Khalid, the point is that two things occuring at the same time does not necessarily mean causality. Saying that the unemployment rate went up because of the stimulus program is unsupported and unsupportable.

That should be "because LBJ invaded.

That example on the stimulation package and unemployment numbers is weak.

Anyone can butress "facts" with a survey of select "eggheads" and some group of "non-partisan" number crunchers.

Take the "fact" that Vietnam has not attacked mainland USA since LBJ invaded, find a group of "military experts" and some "non-partisan" defense review board to "agree" with each other and call it a day.

"These are my facts and if you don't like them I can get you another set".

NBC is void of integrity. Chris Matthews is one of the supposed pilars of the news arm of NBC. Even months after the Fort Hood shooting, Matthews maintains it is unclear if religion played a part in the shooting even after Hassan's own words and actions speak to the contrary. Matthews segment, "Tell Me Something I don't Know" could be replaced with "Tell Me Where I'm Losing Credibility" and introduce a fact checking segment from both Repub and Democrat side that is OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON. It's your audience to loose and you show/news organization is becoming more irrelevant as the weeks pass.

Excellent and important story... thank you. I wrote to Mr. Gregory, his producer and to ABC about this. ABC and This Week's decision to fact check (and publish) its guests’ on-air statements is a milestone in broadcast journalism; it is an important extension of journalistic principle and best practice. I sincerely hope that the other major Sunday morning shows embrace the policy.

Prominent and influential guests use the Sunday morning broadcast platforms to present their positions to the public, and as the journalistic conduit, the broadcasters have the right, and the responsibility, to check the accuracy of the statements broadcasted on-air. If their statements are factual, the guest will have nothing to fear, if not, let them face the consequences. Clearly, the current policy at NBC, CBS and PBS not to fact check tends to reward lying. If a guest knows that their statements will be fact checked and published, they would be less likely to go public with falsehoods. Fact checking could go a considerable distance in restoring public trust in government and the media.

Recently there has been much hand-wringing about the extreme ideological polarization in our politics, and whether our system of government and legislation is capable of responding effectively or meaningfully to the big politically difficult issues, such as global warming, banking reform, off-shore drilling, campaign finance reform, etc. A healthy functional society and its citizens have a stake in good governance. Evidence-based policy can only be founded on facts and honest fact-based, rather than ideologically driven, debate on the major issues of the day. The lifeblood of the ideological demagoguery that currently passes for substantive ‘debate’ and policy making in this country thrives on an absence of fact, and a press, excluding ABC, that tolerates it.

Can you imagine if Fox News Sunday had to fact check its guests’ statements?

I used to record and watch MTP each Sunday.

Since I only have the time to watch one of the Sunday Talk shows, This Week's decision to cooperate with Politifact easily sold me... I now watch This Week instead.

David Gregory has certainly not lived up to the late, great Tim Russert, the most disappointing thing being Gregory's drift toward the "one said/the other said" format so prevalent in todays news shows.

Russert was of the now all-but-extinct Old School of aggressively challenging guests with actual facts and persistent follow-up questions.

I fully expect that MTP will lose more viewership until they find someone more like Russert, or they at least jump on the fact-check bandwagon.

Fact-checking their own content saves a lot of time for viewers of a particular show, and people want to be well-informed without having to spend hours scouring the internet... after all, isn't that the main difference being getting news from the internet as opposed to TV? Television has always been quick and passive, allowing one to do something else like eat or work while watching.

MTP should really reconsider their position on fact-checking... and maybe on Gregory's format as well (as compared to Russert's).