It is precisely when news organizations are itching to take sides that they resort to a “fact check” story—a format that, ironically, liberates them from the usual constraints of conveying both sides of a dispute and frees them to accuse politicians and others they dislike of deception and dishonesty. 

As we noted on this page last fall, it was not a disinterested devotion to the truth that led the Associated Press to assign 11 reporters to “fact check” Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue—a level of scrutiny never before applied to a politician’s memoir. And by the way, don’t waste your time looking for AP’s “fact check” of either of Barack Obama’s memoirs.

Last week, the AP was at it again, with a ludicrously biased “fact check” of the Ground Zero mosque story. Here’s the lede: 

Scrapbook friend Mollie Hemingway had good advice for the wire service at the Getreligion blog: “Just a word to the wise, folks. When composing something that you’re trying to pass off as an independent judgment of ‘facts,’ lay off the non sequiturs, politicking, loaded phrases, red herrings, and unsubstantiated statements. Or move them lower than the first paragraph, at least! I’m still shaking my head over the use of the term ‘demonized’ in a so-called fact check.” ♦

The Creeping Politicization of Everything

Scrapbook reader Scott Barlow writes: 

An excellent question. The Scrapbook is reliably informed that Nancy Pelosi is opening an investigation into the sources of Mr. Barlow’s funding. ♦

What’s That You Say?

The Scrapbook was horrified last week to learn that one in five American teenagers suffers from hearing loss. By any measure, 20 percent is a lot of teenagers—approximately 6.5 million, in fact—and represents a 15-20 percent increase in the past two decades. To be sure, the “hearing loss” described in the stories is comparatively slight; but slight hearing loss in youth can only mean a more profound loss at later stages in life when hearing loss is common.

Any parent of a teenager can identify the culprits: digital technology and loud music. It stands to reason that pushing tiny speakers inside ears and then listening to roof-raising amplification will take its toll on the hearing mechanism. The question, however, is what to do about it. 

No doubt, every adolescent in America is being admonished not to listen to so much loud noise​—whether on iPods, at concerts, or through any old-fashioned delivery system. And like adolescents since time immemorial, today’s teenagers are resolutely ignoring the advice just as their Baby Boom parents ignored it in 1970. 

The other problem is that “hearing loss” has become one of those afflictions so pervasive that no one pays much attention to the details. Depending on which source you consult, the number is either one in six, or one in ten, Americans of all ages who suffer from hearing loss. (It’s one in six for Australians and, mysteriously, one in four for New Zealanders.) According to recent studies, one in four American workers exposed to high levels of noise have suffered hearing loss. Other surveys indicate that one in four combat soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, where concussive explosions and gunfire are routine, suffer hearing loss. The manufacturers of hearing aids tell us—as a public service, of course​—that only one in five Americans who would benefit from a hearing aid actually uses one. And on it goes.

As anyone who has ever conversed with an elderly relative can attest, hearing loss is a physical manifestation of old age, rather like brittleness of bone or fondness for Oldies concerts, and there does not seem to be much medical science can do to prevent it. So while The Scrapbook is, indeed, concerned about the fact that one in five American teenagers suffers premature hearing loss, especially as a consequence of listening to Green Day, there is an upside as well: While 6.5 million adolescents and their grandparents are locked in mutual incomprehension, the parental generation can say—out loud—whatever is on its mind. ♦

‘Bull Cheese’

The Scrapbook takes no pleasure in seeing dirty politicians skate. But we confess to a smirk or two this past week when former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was found guilty of only one count—lying to the FBI—out of the 24 brought against him in front of a federal jury.

We smirked because the prosecutor in this case was Patrick Fitzgerald, the same man who brought trumped up charges against Scooter Libby, a top aide to Vice President Cheney, in the infamous investigation into who leaked the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame to the late Robert Novak (the answer was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s flunky Richard Armitage, who was treated with kid gloves by Fitzgerald). 

In this case, Fitzgerald got the grand jury to indict the proverbial ham sandwich, but the jury convicted only one poppy seed from the bun.

Blago’s attorney was jubilant leaving what should have been (for him) a dreadful scene: “This guy Fitzgerald is a master at indicting people for noncriminal behavior,” Sam Adam told reporters. “And if you don’t believe me, go ask Scooter Libby. Same thing happened with him. They couldn’t get him on any substantive offense, so they got him on some bull cheese that wasn’t even a crime.” Well, we half agree with Adam, and it’s certainly good to see the attorney for a Democratic governor stand up for Scooter Libby, but we’re not sure Libby deserves to be lumped in with the likes of Blagojevich​—that’s “bull cheese,” too. 

Prosecutors have said they will retry Blagojevich on the other 23 counts. ♦

Profiles in Timidity, Eric Holder Edition

Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that he would again delay implementing standards to prevent sexual abuse of inmates in the nation’s prisons. The proposed standards, which have been percolating since 2003, are mostly a matter of common sense: They ask prisons to adopt zero tolerance policies towards rape, segregate vulnerable inmates, and monitor everything closely. 

Given the severity of the problem​—conservative estimates indicate that one inmate in ten is sexually abused behind bars—the standards are desperately needed. If the government can’t protect people in its immediate custody from being raped, what exactly can it do? Certainly, the standards don’t lack for public support. In fact, a mind-bogglingly diverse coalition of groups ranging from Human Rights Watch and the ACLU on the left to the American Conservative Union and Family Research Council on the right has come out in support of them.

Corrections professionals, however, have Holder’s ear and have delayed them because they want to conserve their budgets (yes, the standards will cost money to implement), and, in some cases, protect prison guards from liability (in juvenile facilities, guard-on-inmate attacks may be more common than inmate-on-inmate). Enough is enough. Holder should approve the standards without any more delay. ♦

Sentences We Didn’t Finish

“Over the years, reporters learn that there are a relative handful of the public officials with whom we deal who can be counted on to expand our understanding of events. These are the men and women who have probed deeply into the forces shaping the country—or their part of it—and often anticipate the challenges still to come. During the eight years he was governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack .  .  . ” (David Broder, Washington Post, August 15). ♦