Does "fact-checking" done by idiots and ideologues count as, you know, fact-checking?

If you're going to pretend to check facts relating to the criminal-justice system, shouldn't you know something about the criminal-justice system?

"The ironic thing about the Republican disdain for criminal defense attorneys is how many Republicans eventually end up needing one."

-- washingtonpost.com's Radley Bilko,
in his post "When fact-checking fails"

by Ken

Washingtonpost.com blogger (on "criminal justice, the drug war and civil rights") Radley Balko offers a really interesting post today called "When fact-checking fails."

Two issues sort of intersect here, and they're both interesting.

First is that term "fact-checking," a version of which is now being performed, sort of, by more news media than before, but is being performed  by idiots. And it's hard to argue with the notion that fact-checking by people who don't understand anything about the facts is, well, likely to be counter-factual if not actually anti-factual.

Second is the very basis of our criminal-justice system, and the role of defense attorneys, which are taking a beating at the hands of:

(a) people who don't know the basis of our criminal-justice system or the role of defense attorneys therein, and

(b) demagogues who know they can score phony but easy points by pressing the buttons of easily duped Americans.

AT ISSUE IS THE VETTING OF A
SOUTH CAROLINA CAMPAIGN AD . . .

. . . in which the Republican Governors Association "accus[es] Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen of 'protecting criminals' " and says he "got a sex offender out of jail time, defended a child abuser and represented others charged with violent acts."

Greenville, S.C., news station WYFF recently reviewed the ad and proclaimed most of it “true.” And indeed, as a one-time criminal defense attorney, Shaheen did all of those things. But this is what criminal defense attorneys do. A zealous defense of people accused of crimes is a critical component of our adversarial criminal justice system. You could just as easily have run an ad stating, “Vincent Sheheen spent part of his career defending the very principles that separate the United States of America from authoritarian countries.” A bit lofty, perhaps. But still technically “true.”

Just to be clear here, the obvious fact -- obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject -- is that the RGA ad is categorically false. I'm not even sure I would accept Balko's concession that "Shaheen did all of those things. Assuming he was the defense attorney for the individuals in question, he wasn't defending "criminals" or "a child abuser," he was defending defendants, and if you don't understand the difference, then you are committing a fundamental offense against human sense and decency by voicing any opinion whatsoever about the criminal-justice system.

In a slightly different category would be "[getting] a sex offender out of jail time," since presumably by that point in the proceedings the individual would have been a convicted sex offender, and also "represent[ing] others charged with violent acts" -- both of which I would assume Sheheen actually did. However, both of these, as Bilko explains are integral parts of a defense attorney's "zealous defense of people accused of crimes," which "is a critical component of our adversarial criminal justice system." And again, if you don't understand this, it is important to have it pointed out that you have no understanding of our criminal-justice system and any comments you make about it are likely to be false.

Obviously, we've slipped already into the second issue, the fundamental misunderstanding demonstrated by WYFF's imaginary fact-checker of how our criminal-justice system works. Balko makes the intersting connection that the RGA South Carolina ad --

comes fresh off the successful GOP-led effort to block Debo Adegbile, Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division. The objection was over Adegbile’s efforts on behalf of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal when Adegbile headed up the NAACP’s legal defense fund.

"These attacks," says Bilko, "are, of course, primarily motivated by partisanship."

But they’re more dangerous than the typical attack ad. The implication is that anyone who works in legal defense is, by the very nature of the job, unfit for any other public office. At their core, they’re assaults on the very notion that people who are accused of crimes should get legal representation at all.

Frankly, we need more people with criminal defense experience in policy-making positions. We certainly need more of them sitting on the bench, particularly at the appellate level and on the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, judgeships are overwhelmingly occupied by people who have only served as prosecutors.

IF YOU WANT TO BE DISCOURAGED, LOOK
AT THE SHEHEEN CAMPAIGN'S RESPONSE

AS Bilko notes, "these sorts of attack can be potent, especially in a conservative state like South Carolina." This is just the sort of thing I was thinking of when I established my (b) category of people at whose hands "the very basis of our criminal-justice system" is "taking a beating": "demagogues who know they can score phony but easy points by pressing the buttons of easily duped Americans."

And in this connection, it's hard not to be discouraged by this published response, quoted by Bilko, from Sheheen campaign manager Andrew Whalen:

As a former prosecutor, Vincent has seen what families and victims go through and he has worked with law enforcement to hold criminals accountable and achieve justice. This dishonest ad by Nikki Haley’s DC friends is a disgusting and desperate attempt to distract from children being abused and dying because of the reckless leadership at Haley’s Department of Social Services.

"Note what’s missing, here," says Bilko.

There’s no articulation of why criminal defense is an important and honorable profession. Instead, the campaign refers to Sheheen’s time as a prosecutor and his dedication to holding criminals accountable. Criminal defense isn’t even something the campaign of a former criminal defense attorney is willing to defend.

Of course we don't know what Andrew Whalen actually said. It could be that he offered an eloquent argument based on the crucial role of defense attorneys in our criminal-justice system, and this is what the bumbling "WYYF News 4 Truth Check" chose to print.

But the "Truth Check" did include this bit:

The South Carolina Bar Association has also lashed out against the ad. The group, which represents lawyers across the state, launched a website to refute "the misinformation that is being spread ... about the legal profession and the service provided by lawyers to the citizens of South Carolina."

It's a pity the "Truth Check" team had apparently zero interest in the issues raised by the SCBA about "the legal profession and the service provided by lawyers to the citizens of South Carolina."

Why, there might actually have been a story there.


ALL OF WHICH ASSUMES, OF COURSE . . .

. . . that the WYYF News 4 Truth Checkers were actually interested in checking the truth of the right-wing attack ad. As opposed to, say, supporting the righteous cause of the heroes who want to throw people accused of crimes in jail and throw away the key against the rascals who get rich working to set vicious criminals free to roam the streets. That's not, strictly speaking, "fact-checking," and it's not the way our criminal justice system is designed to work (you know, as in "truth, justice, and the American way"), but it may be that in South Carolina -- and elsewhere -- truth, justice, and the American way don't matter.

#