To see how Ryan's statements were spun, take a look at the coverage from Factcheck.org.
Paul Ryan's spin is not unique. I was told a few years back by the Program Director at NPR that everything in that city is spun. Covering politics in Washington is not for the inexperienced.
Coverage of Paul Ryan's VP Speech at the convention is filled with misleading statements. This behavior is standard for politicians in Washington. Former NPR reporter Andrea Seabrook told Politico in a recent interview that she was lied to everyday. Simply covering what politicians say was a sort of collusion.
Ex-NPR Hill reporter: Lied to daily
Coverage of Ryan's speech the next day focused for the most part on how energizing it was and how Ryan fired up the faithful. Information about the misleading statements were buried deep in the articles. The Columbia Journalism Review thinks the rate of fact checking needs to be sped up. Coverage of Ryan's speech on day two focused on the content and factual errors. Suddenly, the speech was seen as ordinary and filled with lies.
Speeding up the factcheck cycle
Is the after the fact in-depth analysis enough? Would a more balanced approach on day one be better to the public and for Paul Ryan as CJR suggests? Is it enough to just cover the daily events in Washington and or state capitals without the context behind the statements?
