The New York Times fact-checkers need to be fact-checked. Their conclusion re fracking is just one example. They state that “In one three-minute stretch in Janesville, the president made eight inaccurate statements that had been fact-checked repeatedly before.” One of the alleged eight inaccuracies concerned Biden and fracking. Trump “claimed…that Mr. Biden would 'ban fracking' (he has said he would not)”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/politics/trump-rallies.html
Really, that’s the end of the story? Biden “said he would not.” The NYT story links to another NYT story, in which we are told that Mike Pence made a false statement when he said that ““They want to abolish fossil fuels and ban fracking.”
Why is this false? Because “Mr. Biden’s climate change plan would end new leases for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for oil and gas on federal lands, but it does not ban existing fracking on public lands or new or existing fracking on private land.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/07/us/fact-check-harris-pence-debate
So the New York Times takes the Biden campaign’s written “climate change plan” as not only the final word on Biden’s views on fracking but as his only word. But it isn’t his only word. Check out what CNN – not exactly a bastion of pro-Trump propaganda – has to say about Biden and fracking: “Fact check: Biden falsely claims he never opposed fracking”
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/23/politics/biden-fracking-fact-check/index.html
“Biden created confusion about his stance with some of his comments during the Democratic primary. For example, he had this exchange with CNN's Dana Bash during a July 2019 debate:
Bash: "Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?"
Biden: "No, we would -- we would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either -- any fossil fuel.""
So, what’s true about Biden and fracking? Would he ban it? Could he ban it if he wanted to? Does he want to? Has he made different and conflicting statements about it at different times and to different audiences? Checking all that would require more research than simply quoting one time when he said he wouldn’t ban fracking or merely reading a plan prepared by his campaign. Has he made contradictory statements? Are his views on fracking more nuanced than allow it all or ban it all? Doesn’t a plan to “end new leases for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for oil and gas on federal lands” constitute a commitment to at least a partial ban on fracking?
The NYTimes fact-checking on this issue seems to lack depth on a complex issue. There’s fracking on federal land, fracking on private land, new fracking projects, and existing fracking projects. Biden is opposed to at least some of this fracking and would, if he could, ban at least some of it. So is it false to claim that Biden would “ban fracking” or that “They want to…ban fracking"?
Fact-checking can be useful. It can also be misleading. Questions remain: What is the political bias of the fact-checkers? Does their bias lead them to take some candidates’ words at face value while delving deeper into other candidates’ statements? Does political bias lead them to interpret some candidates’ words in a stricter or looser sense? Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Can we assume that fact-checkers employed by the New York Times or the Washington Post will reach the same conclusions about Trump’s words and Biden’s words as will fact-checkers employed by the Wall Street Journal or Fox News?