Article content continued

Fact-checking used to be a big deal in the mainstream media. But diligence in that area has gone somewhat by the board. One reason is budgets. In their salad years, all respectable mainstream media employed people whose sole job it was to copy edit and fact-check both news and opinion columns. In these straitened times, that’s a luxury only well-endowed magazines — or penurious but conscientious bloggers — continue to prioritize for all but highly sensitive issues (allegations of sexual misconduct against high-placed men should, but don’t always, fall under the “sensitive” rubric in this #MeToo moment).

Editorial gatekeepers, consciously or not, incline toward stories and opinions they want to believe are true

The second, more ominous reason for careless fact-checking is ideology. Even in relatively well-heeled publications, one can see a marked indifference to fact-checking or significant omissions of fact, when editorial gatekeepers, consciously or not, incline toward stories and opinions they want to believe are true. (The best example is Israel; corrections to left-leaning media reports is a full-time occupation for the folks at HonestReporting.ca.)

In fact-checking matters “only apparently small,” here’s a case in point.

Last June, Maclean’s magazine published a piece whose theme was rising Islamophobia in Canada. Their reporter described an alleged example of Islamophobia thus: “horrifyingly, last year, a woman had her hijab pulled, was punched and spat on in a grocery tore in London, Ont.” She noted that the female assailant was wearing a red “Canada” shirt.