How to build a fact
In 2017, Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts.” This may be her greatest contribution to humankind, but to be fair, she doesn’t have many others. Everyone made fun of her, but not me. Not me.
In 2017, I was a data scientist. It was my job to make facts that proved whatever the execs wanted me to prove. I was quickly coming to learn that there are an infinite number of facts, for one simple reason: humans can build them. I mean, what Kellyanne said at that time was factually inaccurate. But the idea of “alternative facts” made sense. Yes, it’s Orwellian, but so is everything else about our government. I liked it.
Because of their volume, you can use facts to win any argument. This is why debate kids are so annoying: they’re always right. You can always find more facts, which makes facts simultaneously all-powerful and useless. On the useless side: Andrew Yang recently posted a tweet that cited “71+ polls” that show Biden losing to Trump. If he’d cited a percentage of polls or some kind of standard for these polls, it would have been less stupid, but I could literally conduct 71 polls from my own X account today. To use the absolute number ignores (the fact) that we can just keep generating more facts.
On the all-powerful side: if not for facts, we wouldn’t know anything.
Oxford dictionary defines a fact as “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” Lately, I’ve become obsessed with how to manufacture new facts. For my job, I read hundreds of news headlines per day, on top of the hundreds of others I read just for fun/mental illness. I have to write accurate summaries of the stories, so I stick to reputable sources with reputable journalists who, for the sake of simplicity, I will assume write the headlines (even though it’s probably an editor). But anyway, unless the article represents itself as an op-ed or an analysis or a paid advertisement, the headlines are—by and large—facts. But they’re not all facts in the same way. They haven’t all been built the same.
There are a few ways to manufacture a fact, including but not limited to:
Fact-checking: This is the gold-standard, though I’m not sure how the mechanics of fact-checking work. I’m not a journalist; I don’t know the exact rules. For example: how many people weigh in on a fact before it goes to print? I can tell you the process is thorough, though. I once wrote an essay about my Instagram DMs, and I referred to one user as “hitting on me.” I had to send all the DMs to the fact-checker, who responded to that one with, “that’s not how I read this message.”
Hypothetical or vague language: Paradoxically, the vaguer something is, the more likely it is to be a fact. I say, “I feel tired,” that’s 100% true, unless I’m straight-up lying. If I say, “I am tired,” that might not actually be true. I might just be dehydrated or on my period or sick with COVID or in my thirties. These things all have the same symptoms. I might just feel tired. If a news headline reads: “Many Americans are Concerned About the Economy,” that’s a fact. That’s basically always a fact. An entire news story of vague hypotheticals would be useless, but vague statements have a purpose: they add context without bogging a reader down with too many details. They’re a marker of humility; if a journalist isn’t sure, that should be reflected.
Attribution: Any statement can be a fact if it’s correctly attributed to the person who said it. If Person A did say XYZ, then the statement, “Person A said XYZ” is always a fact, regardless of whether or not XYZ is a fact.
All facts can be abused—you can misuse a hypothetical, for example, by saying something like: “Many Americans are Not Concerned About Climate Change” (this “many” is technically accurate, but according to Pew, only describes about one-third of the population). You can misuse a fact-checked, hard fact simply by poor placement or framing. For example, this Axios story cites the fact that Biden recently cancelled $1.2 billion in student loans & Trump recently launched an overpriced sneaker brand as evidence that both candidates are appealing to younger voters. Both of those facts are true, but the placement is irresponsible—one is a grift to raise money for legal bills, and the other is the President doing his job.
And yet, it’s the third manufactured fact—the attribution—that I’d like to focus on, as I think it comes with the most potential for abuse. Like facts, not all attributions serve the same purpose.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of reasons a headline might attribute a statement, rather than state it outright:
The newspaper has not confirmed the story itself
When major newspapers first reported Alexei Navalny’s death, most of the headlines were along the lines of (see, I’m adding vague language so that this statement rises to the level of fact): “Russian Opposition Leader Alexei Navalny Dies in Prison, According to Russian Authorities.” I cited some examples, but many outlets updated their headlines after the death was confirmed. Everyone knew he was dead, but to ensure their headline was a fact, they inserted the “According to Russian Authorities.” This is the right thing to do, in the event of uncertainty—media outlets really cannot be too careful. They also could have used vague language, but we can agree the headline “Russian Opposition Leader Alexei Navalny Might be Dead” is not really that good. It would have been a fact, yes, but I think it would have confused the public. We are confused enough
In my experience—and this is an anecdotal observation, and therefore only a fact because I’ve told you it’s “in my experience”—if something is on the front page of all the major news outlets, even if it’s attributed to someone else instead of stated outright, then it’s probably true. They first report with caution, then confirm with certainty. And this is good; it would be an issue if CNN regularly gave front-page coverage to conspiracy theories, whether or not they were correctly attributed.
The newspaper does not want to take credit for the reporting
Take the sillier example of the plagiarism charges against billionaire Bill Ackman’s wife. If you don’t know about this story, you’re lucky. I followed it obsessively because I’m mentally ill. Around the time Ackman got Harvard President Claudine Gay essentially fired (vague language, because she technically resigned) for plagiarism, Business Insider reported that Ackman’s wife Neri Oxman was also guilty of plagiarism. Minor, insignificant plagiarism (on the level of…Claudine Gay’s), but plagiarism nonetheless. And Business Insider’s claims were wholly accurate, which we know, because Bill Ackman called up the CEO of their parent company and demanded an investigation. Now, pretty much every news outlet other than Business Insider did not report on the plagiarism directly; they only reported that she’d been accused of it.
I’ll admit: this story was profoundly stupid. I don’t believe Oxman really deserved to be dragged through the mud for some absent quotation marks, when her only crime was marrying a complete and utter tool. Unlike in the case of Navalny’s death, (many of) the journalists did not later confirm the story themselves and then drop the attribution in their headlines. And they could have—her thesis is publicly available. I’m sure there are myriad reasons why they didn’t: fear of retribution from Ackman, time constraints, believing the story was too stupid to confirm. Or maybe it’s just not journalistic practice to do so; maybe it somehow violates Business Insider’s right of first publication? I don’t know; I’m not a journalist.
The newspaper wants to reflect that the person making a claim is the story
But I am a reader. And arguably, we’re the most important part of the news process. The news is written for us; the journalist already knows what happened before the story goes to print. The most critical question, then, is how will a reader understand the headline. I assume that most people who read the headlines about Navalny’s death knew he was dead. If the reporters themselves weren’t sure, a more responsible headline would have been: “International Community Investigates Why Russian Authorities Claim Navalny is Dead” (or something like that). Something that leaves open the possibility that he’s not dead, and that the story is, in fact, about why Russian authorities lied. Same goes for the Oxman case—if you read a Wall Street Journal story about a woman accused of plagiarism, you’re probably going to leave with the impression that she was guilty of plagiarism. Unless the story is about the reasons why she may have been falsely accused of it.
So, if you don’t want the reader to believe the attributed statement, you really should make that clear. Consider the following: Ohio Senator JD Vance got this idea that the Ukraine funding package included a “kill switch” aka “impeachment time bomb” for a Trump presidency. Or, to be more factual, I should say: Ohio Senator JD Vance started saying that the Ukraine funding package included a “kill switch” aka “impeachment time bomb” for a Trump presidency. Setting aside the obvious (a kill switch for a Trump presidency would be awesome), what he was saying wasn’t true. There was no such “kill switch” in the bill.
Even though what he was saying was false, it was also newsworthy: if GOP Senators are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to oppose Ukraine aid, we should know. I want to know. And we did know, thanks to headlines like this:
GOP’s Vance warns of imagined ‘impeachment time bomb’ for Trump
Vance's office doubles down on 'impeachment time bomb' warning in foreign aid package (and this one is fully from Fox News, he’s a right-wing maniac)
Senate GOP Staff Push Back on Vance Claim That Foreign-Aid Bill Includes Trump ‘Impeachment Time Bomb’ (the National Review, same point as above)
In my opinion, these headlines don’t leave the reader with the impression that the “kill switch” is real. So, they’ve correctly attributed the statement while reflecting that the claim itself is the story.
The newspaper wants to intentionally mislead you
It would also be a true fact of a headline to write: Sen. Vance: Foreign Aid Bill Holds 'Impeachment Time Bomb' for Trump (from Newsmax). And in this case, a reader might think the “impeachment time bomb” is real. Maybe not, but maybe yes. Unfortunately, this headline is also a fact. Vance did say that. They’re not wrong.
Attribution can turn an opinion, or a conspiracy theory, or an error, or really anything into a fact. It’s a way to preserve the integrity of a fact while ignoring the truth. So facts, as we understand them, can be used to obscure the truth. Which means that facts are not the truth. So, what are they?
Maybe a better definition of a fact is something along the lines of: an objective statement that doesn’t contain errors and isn’t intended to be misleading. But the word “intended” is subjective, which means that whether or not a fact is a fact is subjective, which seems to defy the definition.
So maybe journalistic integrity means rising above facts. That’s a spicy hot take—the problem with modern journalism is that it’s too factual (ok that’s a joke, I don’t think that’s the problem). But it’s not just journalists who bear this responsibility—we all manage to find the truth beneath the rubble of an infinitude of facts every single day. We do not collectively live our lives buried under an avalanche of facts. People who describe themselves as “data-driven decision makers” are a) bad at using Hinge and b) being redundant. We all use some data to make decisions, but none of us have all the data before we make decisions, because there’s an infinite amount. At some point, there is a level of faith required to know something is true, even if there are facts that could point the other way. I don’t know this for sure, but I do believe that if any of us knew 100% of the facts, none of us would ever drive a car.
Consider vaccines. I think we should all get them, unless we don’t have access or there’s a medical reason not to. But not all the facts support this. The phrase “believe science” is irritating (almost like the phrase “the right side of history.” History preserves all sides; that’s its job). “Science” is composed of an infinite number of facts that point in a variety of directions. “Science” also doesn’t have a press secretary who can speak for it. You want to make your head spin for a few hours? Get on Google and try to figure out if “science” says whole wheat bread is healthy. I am vaccinated because it doesn’t seem like we can live in a functional society if a critical mass of people don’t vaccinate themselves. I know it to be true, even though I’m well aware of the facts that show vaccines can have a negative health impact. It’s condescending to suggest anti-vaxxers don’t know the facts. Stick to the more compelling argument that they’re just selfish assholes who don’t care about other people.
Then again, I don’t think we should disregard facts entirely. We need to be careful about them for the same reasons we need to be careful about AI: facts are manufactured by people, and people are flawed. But if facts don’t have something to tell us, nothing does. Maybe facts are best understood as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the truth. If there were no facts that supported the safety of vaccines, I wouldn’t get them. But the fact that there are facts on the other side also doesn’t dissuade me. I guess what I’m saying is…I think Kellyanne Conway was ahead of her time. Not a fact—just my opinion.
if you like this newsletter, please share with a friend or consider subscribing to premium xo