Check the Fact Checker

Mark Green
Posted December 19, 2011

Compare two passages from the Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler.

Here’s A:

“… the biggest stretch in all of these figures is the biggest number: the 118,000 ‘spin-off’ jobs that supposedly would be created from building the pipeline.”

Here’s B:

“Some readers might wonder how helping the unemployed manages to create any new jobs. That’s because the unemployed must still pay rent, buy food and so forth. The money they receive from the government thus helps keep other Americans in their jobs.”

OK, so in “A” Kessler sounds dubious, skeptical and dismissive of jobs that could stem from construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. When you say something is a “stretch,” you’re saying it’s distorted, either intentionally or accidentally. You can virtually see Kessler’s eyes rolling when he writes that these Keystone XL jobs “supposedly” would be created.

In “B” the fact checker is instructing, educating, patient. To Kessler, unemployment disbursements have positive effect as people use the money to meet various obligations while putting food on their tables. Dare we say, an “induced” effect?

It seems that when induced jobs are used to justify government spending, the Washington Post steps up to educate readers. But when talking about induced jobs from private infrastructure investment – in this case the shovel-ready Keystone XL pipeline – the jobs figure is called a “stretch” and those jobs’ larger economic benefit is dismissed. Here’s the point: Even a dogged fact checker has his or her filters.