This 萝莉社 Newsline Podcast is available at . See the transcript below:
You鈥檙e listening to the podcast edition of the 萝莉社 audio newsline. Learn more about 萝莉社 鈥� the home of Thinkers, Doers, Movers and Shockers 鈥� on the Web at wichita.edu.
In a presidential election year full of speeches and debates, it鈥檚 not always easy to separate fact from fiction. Susan Huxman, director of the Elliott School of Communication at 萝莉社, says there are reasons why candidates sometimes appear to be truth challenged.
Huxman: 鈥淐andidates tend to flirt with fact or fiction, in part because there鈥檚 no such thing as truth with a capital T. This is political discourse and we鈥檙e talking about social values.鈥�
Huxman explains why candidates sometimes say inaccuracies.
Huxman: 鈥淥ne of the reasons that candidates sometimes say inaccuracies is because the formats are so constrictive 鈥� ads and presidential debates are anywhere from nine seconds to two minutes.鈥�
And Huxman says there is a major reason why inaccuracies happen during presidential campaigns.
Huxman: 鈥淚naccuracies happen, in part, because politicians have to draw sharp distinctions between themselves and the rest of the crowded field. And so you see a candidate really struggling to say, 鈥業鈥檓 quite different from candidate X,鈥� and that leads to exaggeration.鈥�
Not all mistakes are necessarily viewed as particularly grievous, as Huxman explains.
Huxman: 鈥淚 think generally people are not that concerned when a candidate may miss a number in saying something like 20,000 homeless sleep under a bridge who are veterans, when maybe the real answer is 18,000, and this was a comment particularly related to John Edwards. I think we鈥檙e far more concerned, and rightly so, when candidates make large kinds of cause and effect arguments, that simply on very close analysis are not true, like, did they really reduce taxes in their state when they were governor?鈥�
In fact, it鈥檚 nearly impossible for presidential candidates to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
Huxman: 鈥淵ou know, candidates simply cannot tell the whole truth. In a political context, that鈥檚 impossible. If they were to do that, if they were to with complete context be entirely accurate, they would only be speaking to an audience of experts and technical scientists and would lose an audience share.鈥�
Nevertheless, Huxman says it鈥檚 good that there are organizations that hold candidates鈥� feet to the fire.
Huxman: 鈥淚 must say that I think it is incredibly important in a democracy that we do have organizations and news sources who hold candidates feet to the fire, so that if there is an inaccuracy, whether it鈥檚 slight or large, that once that鈥檚 called to attention it鈥檚 not going to be repeated again.鈥�
鈥淚 think we need to realize that, in addition to truth, we need to be looking at ethics. We need to be looking at aesthetics. We need to be looking at what is the effect of a particular person鈥檚 ideas or proposals or initiatives, and those are separate criteria.鈥�
Huxman says there are many informative Web sites that watch the accuracy of what candidates are saying, such as www.factcheck.org, by the Annenberg School, www.politifact.com, and www.realclearpolitics.com.
Thanks for listening. Until next time, this is Joe Kleinsasser for 萝莉社.