WaPo Fact Checker Ends Database of Biden's False Claims After Only 100 Days
Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post is being criticized for the decision to shut down the presidential fact-checking database only 100 days into the Biden administration.
Kessler explained his reasoning in a controversial Twitter thread on Monday, saying that the database was only going to be used for the early part of the presidency since the beginning.
“We’ve been comparing Biden (67 false or misleading claims) to Trump’s first 100 days (511 claims.) But past is no prologue. In the last 100 days before the 2020 election, we counted 8,859 claims made by Trump. It was a wild ride,” Kessler tweeted Monday.
We’ve been comparing Biden (67 false or misleading claims) to Trump’s first 100 days (511 claims.) But past is no prologue. In the last 100 days before the 2020 election, we counted 8,859 claims made by Trump. It was a wild ride.
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 27, 2021
“Learned my lesson” means that who knows what the next four years will bring. We have fact-checked Biden rigorously and will continue to do so. Trump at 500 claims/100 days was manageable; 8,000+ was not.
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 27, 2021
“Learned my lesson” means that who knows what the next four years will bring. We have fact-checked Biden rigorously and will continue to do so. Trump at 500 claims/100 days was manageable; 8,000+ was not,” he added.
“And if you think we missed something in our database of the first 100 days, send me a note and I will consider it. What we produced is more comprehensive than anything else out there.”
“Maintaining the Trump database over four years required about 400 additional 8-hour days over four years beyond our regular jobs for three people,” he concluded.
“Biden is off to a relatively slow start but who knows what will happen. We will keep doing fact checks, just not a database.”
Maintaining the Trump database over four years required about 400 additional 8-hour days over four years beyond our regular jobs for three people. Biden is off to a relatively slow start but who knows what will happen. We will keep doing fact checks, just not a database.
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 27, 2021
Conservatives on social media accused the reporter of blatant bias:
The Biden presidency is over. Rest easy. https://t.co/rpamvR98DX
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) April 27, 2021
yeah but what about that tim scott fellow https://t.co/byPz8AVEEi
— Jon Gabriel (@exjon) April 27, 2021
I’m genuinely praying that you’re lying about how “rigorous” you believe your fact checking to be.
Somehow it’s an easier pill to swallow believing that you’re a liar. There’s just no way someone is this confident in their own bias.
— John Willow (@JohnathonWillow) April 27, 2021
DO A DATABASE. This is your job. A database for every single president and politician. It is YOUR job to fact-check them & keep them handy for everyone. Come on, man. But go ahead and enjoy your 4-year vacation. Thanks for confirming your bias.
— ⚾️ Mary #FlyTheW ? (@mchastain81) April 27, 2021
they spent all that money trying to prove that Sen. Tim Scott descended from wealthy landowners yet no database for Biden. https://t.co/vxIvJhpJkz
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) April 27, 2021
Definitely no bias here. https://t.co/N6y1QGmnLf
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) April 27, 2021
Even if the database was only intended for the first 100 days, that should have never been the case.
The Washington Post made sure to do rigorous fact-checking of the Trump administration, along with investigative reporting, and that should continue with Biden.
This decision would not be a major issue if the publication acknowledged their ideological slant that clearly prefers not to hold Biden to nearly the same standard as former President Donald Trump.
The Biden administration still has nearly four to eight years left, making it disingenuous for them to stop the database now simply because they believe the president symbolizes a “return to normal.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
