Time’s Michael Scherer (10/9/12) responded to a FAIR Blog post by FAIR’s Peter Hart (10/3/12), who apparently spoke for many:
Peter Hart, writing for the liberal Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, summed up many of the tweets I received. “The article kicks off with a hefty helping of false balance–the tendency to see all problems as coming more or less equally from both sides,” he wrote. “One of the most common problems with media factchecking is the need to always be balanced–no matter what is happening in reality.”
Michael Scherer: What is truth?
Scherer responds:
I don’t disagree with Hart’s underlying point…. I would love to be able to tell you that Mitt Romney is misleading more than Barack Obama or vice versa…. The problem is that there is no existing mechanism for carrying this sacred duty out in real time…. There are just too many subjective judgements that have to be made to come to any conclusion.
Or, as Pontius Pilate said, “What is truth?”—before washing his hands of the whole affair.
It drives home the point that what journalists call “objectivity” is really a radical post-modernism—a denial that anything can ever really be known about the world, that all we really can do is report various claims about the world. While factchecking as an enterprise would seem to inherently accept the idea that, yes, there are facts and they can be checked, in practice the people called factcheckers deny that what they do can be used to meaningfully distinguish between candidates:
Some have tried to count up the factchecking ratings on these sites to determine which candidate is worse. But all the factcheckers agreed that this is a flawed methodology, since it pulls from a tainted sample compiled unevenly by the factcheckers themselves.
All that precise assignment of Pinocchios, those dials that indicate precisely what article of clothing is combusting? Those are just for show, to give a scientific-looking veneer to what is really just some guy rattling on based on his political prejudices. Which is often what I think when I read corporate media factchecks, but I didn’t expect that the factcheckers saw it that way.
The most illuminating quote, though, is from Factcheck.org’s Brooks Jackson—who acknowledges that even if he could tell you which candidate was the more deceptive…he wouldn’t:
Even if we could come up with a scholarly and factual way to say that one candidate is being more deceptive than another, I think we probably wouldn’t, just because it would look like we were endorsing the other candidate.
Exactly. Jackson’s job is not to be fair, but to look fair—and if he didn’t conclude that each side was getting a lot of stuff wrong, that wouldn’t look very fair, would it? The downside of this approach is that it makes Factcheck.org’s whole enterprise essentially fraudulent, pretending to go through the motions of disinterested analysis in order to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Again, this is the impression I have gotten from following Factcheck’s work, but I didn’t expect Jackson himself to issue a confession.
This is so sad, and terribly disillusioning to someone like me, who had been rejoicing in the new factchecking sites. I KNEW there was too much “He said, she said” in our news talk, but I was not aware that FACT CHECKING also contained too much “…false balance–the tendency to see all problems as coming more or less equally from both sides….One of the most common problems with media factchecking is the need to always be balanced–no matter what is happening in reality.” However, in spite of all this, I will still trust Politifact.
When did selling out become a American trait? journalist, politicians, the mom at the local bake sale, as much as we like to point the finger at the politicians they are but a reflection of the population. We need a ethics revival in this country from the bottom to the top, then maybe we will have leadership from the top to the bottom.
Don’t worry, if someone with the politics of Hugo Chavez ever actually becomes a factor in American politics, these factcheckers will quickly decide that they can make value judgments and label SOME politicians “liars.”
At some pretzel logic level, it makes perfect sense.
The corpress has precious little regard for truth in all other areas of its operation, so why should it be expected to deign to discern it in this one?
And that’s a fact that eminently easy to check, isn’t it?
Jackson was simply saying they cannot endorse any candidate. This doesn’t mean he admits their work is fraudulent. That’s a strange conclusion to make based in what he said.
It’s also strange to compare fact checkers with the media within the context of presenting false balance. Meaning, the media ignores the facts to provide both sides (regardless of how false either argument is). The whole purpose of fact checkers, on the other hand, is to call attention to the lies told and then correct them by actually providing the facts.
Careful, FAIR, lest you be accused of wading into the waters of false equivalency yourself.
@TD Didn’t Jackson say he couldn’t have it look like he was endorsing a candidate which can be completely different from saying “they cannot endorse any candidate”, since saying one candidate lies more than the other isn’t really an endorsement for the other even though it may have the appearance to some as being so.
In my 2009 documentary film, Broadcast Blues, Brooks Jackson says of the McCain team, “We’re seeing a pattern of deception from them, a pattern of deceit, something we don’t often say.” No, he was not endorsing, but he wasn’t pulling any punches either as to which side was more deceptive.
The facts are that if the Fact Checkers did indeed check facts, and reported that, then the candidates and their party’s would no longer allow them around. Who would want someone who actually tells the truth all the time, then they can’t play flop-flip and claim that that are just repeating the same (tired lies) as they were put out.
In particular the Rethuglican Teavangelicals would be at lose because they don’t actually know what the truth is anyway, so if you told them the truth they would upset and confused because they would have no way to deal with it.
I can understand fairness in fact-checking. But if any candidate wishes to clear the fact-checkers, it’s quite simple, TELL THE TRUTH!
The bigger media is marching themselves right out of business – all that is needed is one news source that waits for the facts, prints them without ads or ad pressure, and has no agenda outside of reporting.
Dear Mr. Scherer:
Well, oh my, this could be a simple problem to fix. The candidates debate, but WE don’t see it live. The FACT CHECKERS are there at the “live part” and the rest of us see it on tape delay one hour later.
The FACT CHECKERS, and their numbers could be legion, are poised to question everything. When the taped debate was shown, ( wouldn’t an hour of fact checking or two be enough?) then the public would see the FACTS checked at the bottom of the screen as to TRUE or FALSE. as soon as the words were spoken. with sources defined with the checked facts.
I think this would work wonderfully, but it would only work if those in the position to change things really wanted to broadcast the truth. No need for “balance” as they say, as the candidates would be responsible for the “truthiness” or not that emerged from their own mouths.
I don’t see why everything has to be immediate, as having to have something NOW, leads to stupid things like, you know, WMDs and insane wars! You know, ” Measure twice and cut once” isn’t just good advice for carpenters. : ) I’m actually amazed that debates ar so important as what each candidate has said all year are more compelling.
OMG, If you, Mr. Scherer really believe in BALANCE, then let the candidates speak and hold the balancing scales to their own words that are fact checked in a taped delay. Oh yes, and The League of Women Voters would be excellent fact checkers. : )
If Scherer were school principal, he’d send both kids home for fighting, turning his back on the proof of whom was the clear instigator.
Factchecking, Fairness and Objectivity
I’ve spent (wasted?) 40 years in the newsbiz. I was raised up on OJT in the newsroom by a bunch of veteran reporters at the Houston TX Chronicle and Post. (Note the word “reporters” – If anyone walked into the newsroom and said “I want to talk to a journalist”, they’d have had a copyboy (possibly me at one point in career) escort our visitor to see “the blowhards over in Editorial Opinion”.
What did they teach about facts, fairness and objectivity? If a farmer came in and reported that he had found an apple pie growing in his field, they’d have said “Go check it out with an open mind. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. Look at it. Sniff it. Have some experts check it out. Work all the angles and present the straigh facts well-written. If it is an edible apple pie growing out of the ground, we’ve got a story. If it’s a cow plop with its of apples in it, It’s just bullshit in a pasture. No story.”
Investigate first. Report second.
This had to happen. What society fully intent on rushing into an Orwellian world would not do all it can to kill truth? Those who are trained to sniff it out have to become the leaders in ignoring it.
Remember the OJ trial where everything that was up was down?Sometimes running down the facts in politics can be like that.He said she said.My problem as a conservative with the left is that they have created a culture where there literally is no right and wrong.Nothing is ever black and white.No morality,no action can ever be truly judged.Like the Oj trial.And this has bled into every aspect of life.Even fact checking is looked at as a moral relativism.During Obamas run he literally was not vetted by a press that lived solidly in his corner.Today we find he lied for 9 days over what he new of the Ambassadors death.Lied to everyone.Conservative demand facts.The libs do not.As a conservative I tell you squarely that I believe the press joins in this game to confound and confuse those trying to nail down “facts’ so as to keep the left on an even playing field.When the collapse came i believed those so involved in the lies of Fanny and Freddy should all be in jail.95% were on the left.I believed that before the collapse.I also believe the press was in collusion to spread the blame.To wall street,and banks.Trying to point to them as the true trigger mechanism.I believed that would be the case before the collapse.I often said so in my speeches.They pound facts flat to make the landscape featureless.Again to even the playing field.As a conservative it is my estimation they do this to save the lefts ass.
I watched Joe Biden trumpet he and Obama’s achievements during the debate.Sounded wonderful.Hopeful even.Summer of love baby.Time to congratulate ourselves, and have a fine dinner.It makes me wonder do they have a tV or a window????I saw the EU won an award last week.Same thing…do they look out the window?Hard ass fact checking goes on everyday on the radio.Right wing talking heads and their counterparts on the left.That is where the real battle lines lie.The “ink”press is compromised.
Forgot to mention abortion.Really roasted my chestnuts that question during the debate..Two Catholics.One not willing to separate the” facts” of what he believes with his job .Both medically,spiritually and morally ,when it interferes with political necessity.Joe believes abortion is wrong.But he wont allow that to interfere with what other people want to do.Is that not the definition of no core values?What else as a president(scary to even contemplate) would he believe is wrong….. yet would stay silent on because his base wants it?I was really stunned on that slippery answer.I would of been fine if he said he believes it is right to abort .Or that he does not agree with his church.But he said in effect that he agrees with those who abhor abortion but will choose to stay silent!On what basis?Put aside the arguments the left gives ,often referred to as “freedom of choice”.Why does no one say….freedom to kill a fetus?Or in too many cases, to kill a baby?We need to clearly frame this debate before we can have it.I think once we do……a great many politicians will steer clear.
So scary that journalists no longer know how to verify statements. I love the internets.
Heres a few facts: 2+2=4, lawn grass is green, diamond is several times harder than emerald, FOX news is a propaganda network and billionaires are attempting to circumvent representative government by using hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money. The Koch brothers will spend an estimated 400 million which is a mere six tenths of ONE PERCENT of their combined wealth in effort to deny Americans their right to vote, so they can have things their way. They are essentially hiring themselves a government for purposes of gerrymandering regulations not to their liking, while the rest of us cough on polluted air and develop illness from compromised aquifers. The right wing faction of the Supreme Court has made this plausible, possible and probable (Citizen’s United ruling) unless enough of us fight back the tide of plutacracy. How’s that for a few facts?!
Michael E says, “My problem as a conservative with the left is that they have created a culture where there literally is no right and wrong.Nothing is ever black and white.No morality,no action can ever be truly judged.Like the Oj trial.”
Michael, I have to say that this is laughable. The small grain of truth in what you are saying is that the left has said “Don’t be so self-righteous that you think you own the truth.” That means that one has to actually listen to the other side, recognize human imperfections, and reach a judgment about who is closer to the truth. It leaves absolute truth to God.
The culture that the right has created from their disdain of “moral relativism” is one in which the candidate they hold up to America as a leader is a sociopathic liar who can contradict himself in the same sentence and later deny he said any of it if that will please his listeners.
I’ll stick with the humility of what the right derides as “moral relativism” if the alternative is the arrogance of thinking that one is in charge of the truth and therefore God.
Michael e also says, “Joe believes abortion is wrong.But he wont allow that to interfere with what other people want to do.Is that not the definition of no core values?”
Read your epistles more closely. Believers are not responsible for policing the behavior of unbelievers. They are responsible for their own behavior.
The Catholic Church does not have a problem with the laws of the United States. It has a problem that its own members have lost confidence in their leadership and are ignoring them on many issues, including those of contraception and abortion. Instead of searching their own souls to see how they can inspire and persuade their congregations, the bishops have fallen to petty politicking, lower than a Tammany Hall influence peddler.
Joe Biden lives his beliefs. He is just not quite so arrogant as to believe that he should impose them on others.
The rambling horribly written statements by one of the comment givers to this thread are a manifestation of what the real problem is: Most voters simply don’t possess the mental ability to discern truth from falsehood. In addition to being uninformed, they are mentally incompetent. The highly sophisticated political operatives know this, and most of the comment givers to this post know it. The media knows it. The spin doctors know it. Smart well educated people know it. There are people who cannot think logically who, by virtue of the mentally incompetent voter base, get into congress. In fact, the incompetence of the voting public has resulted in not one, but both parties having too many intellectually deficient office holders, and the result is broken government. Today, our basic institutions are failing because of intellectual incompetence. Perhaps it is an idiocracy already. Perhaps not. By jacking up the national debt and by passing the Reagan and Bush tax cuts without lowering spending, and because of free trade, we have become a society with greater wealth disparity than any other in history. We are on a track that will gut all the new deal reforms and make most Americans hopelessly poor. Sucking all the wealth to themselves..that seems to have been the goal of rich elites throughout human history, and that’s what’s really going on. It’s a cinch that more tax cuts will not help the middle class, as new funds for private investment will flow to China and other slave states. With national wealth more concentrated in fewer hands than at any time, or in any society in the history of the world, why on Earth would we again try to create prosperity by further concentrating it? Reagan created a false prosperity by building up a 5 trillion deficit to give rich people tax cuts and to pay for a 600 ship Navy with the star wars missile defense fiasco for frosting. Reagan also began the relaxation of Wall Street regulations and helped start us on the too big too fail trajectory. Democrats have just been pathetically weak caretakers who did nothing about free trade, which has poored America. Clinton succeeded only by letting Wall Street create a bubble while jobs continued to flow overseas. Clinton helped build the bubble by slowing the national debt increase, but it was simply not enough. Clinton passed NAFTA, marking him for future historians as a big contributor to national decline.
Bush II was an unmitigated disaster.
The point of all this is that at heart of out problems is the media monopoly, and the power that money has over the press. People need the truth, and they cannot arrive at the truth independently. The press is just an echo chamber for the two parties, and both parties are wrong. The press slants the news, slants the fact checking. and slants everything it does.
Another problem with factchecking is that each “problem area” is deemed of equal importance. Thus, a trivial error gets as much press as a false statement upon which an entire argument is built. For example, the fact that Bush embarked on establishing lines of credit extended towards General Motors–a statement brought forward to counter Democrats’ claim that Obama bailed out the auto company–is given equal prominence to the utter impossibility of Romney/Ryan’s plan to balance the budget, decrease unemployment, and increase Pentagon spending. Who started the auto bailout pales in significance compared to the fantasies spun by Republicans. I take factchecking to be nothing more than a way a company tries to convince readers that a media source is “fair and balanced,”–thereby trying to increase readership and profits of the media company.
Charles Im not equating the science of life and where and when it begins, to the religious belief of same.Im simply saying that due to both of those influences Mad uncle Joe thinks it is wrong.Yet for political reasons he will stay silent.Im not asking him to try to impose anything.I am saying he should trumpet his beliefs with the same gusto as he did during the debate.I even think that mad smile and churlish laughter would go well as he speaks about backing the votes Obama made 4 times as a senator for late term abortion.And by the way…I believe we must keep this medical procedure.And Politicians should stay out of it as much as is humanly possible.But there is nothing wrong with changing hearts and minds.Go to it Joe.Oh and ask anyone in any power of authority ,or any expert on catholic doctrine.He is a lousy catholic(just like me).He is a hypocrite to even call himself a Catholic.The Catholic church does not stand by silent as millions of the most innocent among us die.Joe does.See you cant be everything to everyone.Honesty would dictate you choose.Politics blurs that line.
Don’t be so righteous as to think there even “IS” a truth- is the lefts motto by the way.As far as Mitt being a pathological liar????Your kidding right?The party of …..”I did not have sex with that woman” and “the death of our ambassador was due to a movie” is calling Mitt a pathological liar?The party of “I never knew Rev wright or Bill ayer”s?The party of “our president does not release his grades or any other information’?The party of open hearings on health care?Look friend, in the conservative world Obama hasn’t said a truthful thing in 4 years.Soon it will be one liar down and we can begin judging Mitt.I can’t believe you lived through Obamas first run and have the balls to call Mitt the liar.
Richard Fidler is right. Fact checkers should advise readers as to the magnitude of the lie. Just how material is the lie? Is it so substantial that it completely undermines the candidates platform? Is it relatively insignificant? Does it relate to policy directly? Or does it relate to something of a personal nature?
Yes you media monopoly fact checkers….try doing that. What we need too are checkers for the fact checkers….which the story we are commenting on is an example of.
Facts are not morals. Facts are not in the right/wrong arena. If someone says Mitt created a social health care system in Massachusetts. It would be a fact. You could look it up. It happened. If someone (even Mitt) says it is wrong to do so, that would be their opinion or moral belief. If they jump all over the place saying it is wrong when they did it themselves, then in my OPINION, they are a liar and a hypocrite. Mitt and friends can pretend all day that he did no such thing, and that would make them delusional. I don’t know if is a fact that Mitt is delusional but I do know that 1. Mitt created a social health care system in Mass. 2. Mitt does not believe in socialized medicine, although apparently now he does as long as only states do it. That could change tomorrow in which case that fact would change tomorrow (the fact of what he believes). Mitt also believed 47% of Americans are lazy takers (heads up red states) and said it in so many words as we all know. It is a fact he SAID it. He believed it then apparently and now he doesn’t. Get out your erasers to correct the fact that what he believes has changed since he was exposed for believing it at the time it was taped. Either that or note both facts and remember to ask Mitt from day to day what his opinion is on any given thing. Any questions?
And then of course we can examine the avoidance of facts. Mr. Romney wants no fact of what his demon spawn, Bain, does to get in the way of his wondrous belief that he will be creating jobs in America in no time when he is elected. Don’t look at what Bain is doing as we speak and how this policy puts money into Romney’s bulging pockets:http://truth-out.org/news/item/12099-is-this-why-romney-wont-talk-to-sensata-workers-whose-jobs-are-being-shipped-to-china
Michael E. says, “As far as Mitt being a pathological liar????Your kidding right?The party of …..”I did not have sex with that woman” and “the death of our ambassador was due to a movie” is calling Mitt a pathological liar?The party of “I never knew Rev wright or Bill ayer”s?The party of “our president does not release his grades or any other information’?The party of open hearings on health care?”
Michael, be careful that in your defense of your man, you don’t drift off into lying yourself. Neither Obama nor the Democratic Party has ever claimed that he “never knew Rev Wright or Bill Ayers.” That’s your invention. Nor is a refusal to release grades a lie. Nor, for that matter, is the decision of Hillary to close health care hearings relevant to Barack Obama. I hope you’ll reflect that the Greek meaning of the word “devil” is “slanderer.” That was Judas Iscariot’s primary sin.
Michael E also says,
“Charles Im not equating the science of life and where and when it begins, to the religious belief of same.Im simply saying that due to both of those influences Mad uncle Joe thinks it is wrong.Yet for political reasons he will stay silent.Im not asking him to try to impose anything.I am saying he should trumpet his beliefs with the same gusto as he did during the debate.”
So, your basic complaint is that Biden doesn’t express his opinion loudly enough for your tastes, not that he has violated his beliefs.
Jesus had nothing to say about abortion, even though it has been practiced throughout human history. But he had a lot to say about the poor and dispossessed. Why aren’t you upset that Paul Ryan does not speak loudly about the need to care for the poor? Jesus had quite a lot to say about hypocrites, you know.
Men wanted to seize Jesus and make Him king, so he departed from them. Just so, people who try to use their religious beliefs for political purposes will find that Jesus has departed from them.
Don’t feed the trolls. It only encourages them.
Charles….What I am trying to get over to you is simply this.We who do not ride the Obama delusion train ….see him as a consummate liar these last four years.During his run even more so.Read the book “The amateur”.(And did you really say Hilary closed those hearings?Or that omission can not be seen as a lie regarding his school records?Or that he did not say he barely knew Bill the bomber ,or the man heard on those lovely tapes attacking America?Where the hell have you been?)So to call Mitt a liar is just funny to people like me.He has not yet begun his job as president yet you already have him”out -lying”…. the liar en chief.If you want to compare Obamas 1rst run with Mitts ,well I would warn you not to go there.To see how they care for the poor is easy.Mitt always gave huge amounts to charity from the day he stepped out of college.Barrack has given next to nothing.Ryan always gave a lot.Uncle Joe next to nothing.So please.Really please……Obama like to say “to care for the least of my brothers” in all his speeches..Well his brother lives in a hut,and just borrowed 2 grand from a conservative talking head to get an operation.So really palease……….
People like me who worked for Clinton KNOW he is also a liar.Joe is much lower on the food chain.He is just a politician.Saying what he is supposed to say.He can cry and laugh in the same sentence.His stance on abortion is a mix of this, and a mix of that.And that mix equals what sells.He would yell his views to the world if he thought that is what the polls said would sell.If not….. he would stay silent.Yes that is having no core values worth fighting for.Yes that is a hypocrite.And yes that angers me that that sort would sit one step from the presidency.And my God what a scary thought that is.Think of him laughing, and mocking ,and interrupting the Russian leader in talks with him.Yeah I would rather have him than Ryan.Yeah sure.Maybe Jack Nicholson.
And I respect you seem a religious man who balances things around what Jesus said.I do not.Twelve years of harsh catholic schools made me a little more “speculative” shall i say.
michael e says, “Joe believes abortion is wrong.But he wont allow that to interfere with what other people want to do.Is that not the definition of no core values?”
No, that is the definition of a TRUE political leader, upholding the Constitutional doctrine of church/state separation. It is also the definition of a TRUE Christian, living his personal beliefs while respecting others enough to not impose his onto those of different faiths.
Orwell wrote in “1984” the “Reality” perpetuated and dicated by Big Brother: “”Reality is inside the skull. Nothing exists except through human consciousnesses”? His point was, reality was what Big Brother said it was, and Big Brother said it was not something objectfiably quantifiable, that it was all relative. Here we are.
Tee jae lets put this in a perspective you will understand.Joe is a hypocrite -because he will not speak out against what he knows is wrong.Notice I said “speak out”.I am not interfering with any constitutional aspects that I can think of, in that simple statement.The reason he does not speak out is one thing and one thing only….political gain.
Obama thought Gitmo was morally and legally wrong.Would it be ok for him to say- I think it wrong but I shall stay silent?Low taxes for the rich.I think it wrong, but not a word will I say.The death penalty…against it, but better to stay silent on the matter?Drones…..Horrible weapons but lets not talk about that?Not having a single payer health system hurts poor people but I will keep it to myself?No you would not be so understanding of such attitudes.They kill babies don’t they??????SHHHHHH everyone just say you disagree then shhhhhhhhh be quiet.That you understand as a “true political leader”?You make me want to vomit
“The rambling horribly written statements by one of the comment givers to this thread are a manifestation of what the real problem is: Most voters simply don’t possess the mental ability to discern truth from falsehood. In addition to being uninformed, they are mentally incompetent. The highly sophisticated political operatives know this, and most of the comment givers to this post know it. The media knows it. The spin doctors know it. Smart well educated people know it. There are people who cannot think logically who, by virtue of the mentally incompetent voter base, get into congress.” -Powerless Stooge
Powerless Stooge, I am totally with you, except for YOUR false equivalence. While there may be a few idiot Democrats in Congress and elsewhere, the vast majority of idiocy belongs to Republicans, both the elected ones and the ones who elect them. Republicans and Republican special interests use the mental incompetence and lack of awareness of tens of millions of Americans (many so-called “independents” included) as a key part of their strategy for getting Republicans elected and in control of the nation. They lie even after the lies are widely debunked because they know the lies work.
I’m not the first person to say this, but Democrats care a lot more – possibly too much – about the truth. I can’t remember who it was, but someone much smarter than I said in a book he wrote (I think sometime in the last decade – people here may remember it), that Democrats often fail in their attempts to get elected because they focus on reason, logic, and truth, while Republicans focus on WINNING, winning at all costs. Republicans are brilliant at marketing (a.k.a. making lies sound like truth). Good marketing, with help from the corporate media, is how they get elected.
Jamie H Im laughing my ass off.Dems dont lie?Did you work for Clinton?Cause I did.Lies lies lies everyday in every way.As much as I respected the mans grey matter….. it is why i first left.As far as the right being uninformed,deranged,or whatever else half assed name you want to stamp on them(you sound so elitist),let me come down a few steps to inform you.All in all there is a pretty even breakdown of right and left in the political factoid game..Both share an even balance of informed ,and uninformed.Is a socialist like Tim or Gloriana uninformed because of what they truly believe?Or is a tea party conservative like myself mentally incompetent as you would put it?Is either side evil?No….we both want what is best ,and we honestly disagree on what that may be.You cant just write off a 150 million possible voters as idiots.And if Mitt wins you can’t just talk it up to stupidity,because it goes against what you believe.Though I thought Obama a horrible choice last time(even Hilary was far better),I completely understand it.Bush whether you agree with his actions or not ,left this country in two wars and with an economy in tatters.And the buck stops there.Anything that smelled of him was voted down.Obama had no qualifications what so ever.But America slapped the arrogant Republican power structure down because they would of voted Gumbi in.Well now I hate to say it -but it is Gumbi’s turn again.Obama done screwed the pooch(or ate it)!A foreign policy policy in disarray.Still at war.And an economy that is heading fast toward the brink of total destruction.And again the buck stops at his desk.As he himself said”if I don’t fix this I will be a one term president”.Yet you can’t understand that he may be voted out?You would heap derision on anyone who would vote against 4 more years?Personally I think the “lack of awareness” lies squarely on your shoulders.You could not see “the truth” of these last four years if it hit you between the eyes.And as far as that word the left throws around with such ease..caring.i have heard people often say that Obama ‘cares” more than Mitt for the poor.I have one question for you.I hope you answer it.Educate me.Why in his life has Obama and Biden given so little to charity?Fair to say next to nothing.Why does Obamas half brother live in a hut in abject poverty,with little to no contact from his monstrously wealthy and all powerful brother?Why did he go to a conservative talk show person to borrow money for a life saving operation?All this while Obama says “what you give to the least of my brothers’ in his stump speeches?Explain that to me
Newsflash, michael e. 99% of politicians are hypocrites. That’s irrelevant. If you want to judge Biden for what he says, knock yourself out. I’ll judge him for what he DOES.
How many facts would a fact checker check if a fact checker could check facts?
Teejae what exactly does he do?Drunk uncle joe who debates by yelling everytime the other fellow wants to speak?Who says of Obama he is a “clean” black man who speaks well?Who says you cant enter a 7/11 unless you are Indian?His gaffes are legendary.Joe is the face of the Dem party.Manic.Snarky.Angry.Insufferably arrogant and nasty.He gives nothing to charity personally -yet calls himself charitable for his ability to take from others others their wealth . He then decides who the winners and losers shall be.He always was a massive drag on Obama and this country.An embarrassment.Does he laugh that weird laugh of his while dealing with the Russians?Obama put him one step from the presidency.Made me pray everyday for Obamas health.Obama who was completely unqualified …at least seemed to have half a brain.As they say…Joe is just Joe.THAT is the best this country has to offer?
“Drunk uncle joe who debates by yelling everytime the other fellow wants to speak?”
But you’re okay with O’Reilly and Hannity doing it. Also, where does the “drunk” accusation come from?
“Who says of Obama he is a “clean” black man who speaks well?”
Those are words, not actions. Nevertheless, what’s wrong with that? He is. Or do you just find that offensive because Fox or Rush told you to?
“Who says you cant enter a 7/11 unless you are Indian?”
Again words, not actions. And when did he ever say that?
“Manic.Snarky.Angry.Insufferably arrogant and nasty.”
Again, just because Fox or Rush say it doesn’t make it so. Biden does, however, tell it like it is and doesn’t sugarcoat things, which is refreshing in this era of too many thin-skinned people borne of the ridiculous “PC” movement.
I feel like I’m looking at Romney’s tax plan. http://www.romneytaxplan.com
I can’t get a clear window to enter anything. Please. Why did you change things?
Michael – you need to take a pill and go to bed. Enough already.
The clear inferrence to be drawn here is that the rational political response to this norm is lie as outrageously as possible whenever you think it will benefit you because factchecker would have to cast a pox on both your and your opponent’s houses to avoid the appearance of supporting the non-liar.
If the media and the fact checkers would grow a pair and report the truth, the politicians would be held accountable. News Corp has posioned the media and no one will confront or fact check them. I guess they are too mean and powerful for anyone to touch. What a shame… Goodbye Democracy!
Poor Michael – He’s been out Foxed by News Corp and nothing you say can change his mind. He repeats Fox lies in a comment session about fact checking! Its really sad.
Making “looking fair” a higher priority than “reporting fair” defeats the purpose of open honest reporting. I understand that true reporters try to stay out of the argument itself and just be an objective observer. But reporting in a way that creates the illusion of fairness for the sake of being fair is still an illusion. Which is exactly what we are trying to avoid with fact checking, to cut through all the bull crap and have the facts laid out. The company is probably worried that if they write reports that seem to favor republicans because they will be criticized by democrats and the likewise.
If this year the republicans made more incorrect, unsupported claims than democrats, so be it. If next year the opposite is true, report it. If every year one party made incorrect, unsupported claims more than the other, report it! Its not the responsibility of reporters to cover up the truths about our nations politicians (or any news for that matter).
However, It is not the reporters job to say “false” or “true”. The news should just be reported as it is by reporting the claim and then following it with facts and sources. The choice of whether to call it a lie or not should be up to the individual reading the information. The last thing people need is to be told what to think.
What do you think?