‘Just the facts’ about the presidential candidates

One of the comments I hear most often as editor of The Christian Science Monitor is, just give us the facts.

This week’s cover story provides just the facts on American presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Neither of the two has offered much in the way of developed policy platforms, at least not by recent historical standards. But they do have political records. We examine those to give you a sense of how they might govern, beyond the rhetoric.  

On one hand, the criticism about facts is a fair point. Journalism in general has become more interpretive in recent decades. Where news was once mostly just quotes and facts, now it involves analysis and context. The Monitor was a leader in this transformation, looking to make news more than a recitation of events by explaining their relevance and importance. But yes, that does open the door to interpretation.  

And there were other reasons for the shift, too. Media historians point to the coverage of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose attempts to uncover Communist activity in the United States in the 1950s have since been seen as reckless and prejudicial. Many media outlets came to the conclusion that their “just the facts” reporting enabled the senator’s activities. 

Even the seeming golden era of “just the facts” reporting, during the 1960s and 1970s, is to some degree a matter of perspective. Ask many Black Americans if the reporting in those days was fair and factual, and the answer will be, that is how it looked to the (usually white) people doing the reporting.

Now, research increasingly shows that facts aren’t even all that effective at changing minds. “Confronting facts that don’t line up with your worldview may trigger a ‘backfire effect,’ which can end up strengthening your original position and beliefs, particularly with politically charged issues,” writes Keith Bellizzi, a professor of human development at the University of Connecticut, in the online newsmagazine The Conversation.    

Are facts pointless, then? Of course not. But I think we are learning a new lesson that we would be wise to heed. Facts lose much of their meaning in a time when a nation or community is deeply divided about the best way forward. Partly, this is because each side is prone to share the facts that comport with its argument. This trend should be resisted.

But it also appears increasingly clear that, on some meaningful level, shared facts are a reflection of shared purpose. Even when we disagree, forces of respect, curiosity, and care for one another can have a crucial binding effect, allowing us to agree to disagree rather than to fracture into wholly different universes of “facts.”

Right now, misinformation is rife amid a wild west of internet information and a political landscape fueled by fear of the other. Finding the true facts must be about rigor and professionalism. But perhaps it is also about all of us finding new frontiers and perspectives within ourselves.