Back in May FAIR wrote about the problems with a new factchecking project, where the PolitiFact website evaluates ABC‘s This Week. As we said then, this is theoretically a fine idea; the problem is that, in practice, what PolitiFact decides to analyze is almost as important as what is said on the show. A completely uncontroversial comment from Bill Clinton, for instance, was determined to be “true,” though no one would suggest that it wasn’t. Defense Secretary Bob Gates’ somewhat tendentious criticism of Wikileaks (for releasing a video of civiliansbeing killed in Iraq by U.S. forces)was determined “Mostly True,” though their reasoning was pretty unconvincing.
The right-wing Media Research Center has tallied up PolitiFact‘s scorecard so far, and theyare pleased with the results:
After nearly three months, the results show far more Democrats and liberals earning a “False” rating, with most of the “True” ratings going to Republicans and conservatives. The discrepancy remains even if you take into account that about two-thirds of the evaluated statements came from Democrats in the first place.
From April 11 through June 20, PolitiFact has handed out seven “False” statements–six to Democrats/liberals, one to a Republican. During that same time, seven “True” labels were handed out–four for Republicans/conservatives, just two for Democrats (one, ironically, going to former President Bill Clinton).
If I were a right-wing media critic, this couldn’t be better news: According to a non-partisan study of one Sunday show, liberal and Democrats are more often telling whoppers.
Of course, this only points to the problems inherit in PolitiFact‘s approach. As FAIR noted in May, George Will has madeclaims that demand some sort of fact-checking–but the site, for whatever reason, doesn’t seem to show much interest in evaluating the statements of one of the show’s regular panelists.
As Arianna Huffington recently pointed out (7/5/10), during one of her This Week appearances she declared that Halliburton had “defrauded the American taxpayer”–a comment that right-wing panelist Liz Cheney strongly (and unsurprisingly) found objectionable: “Arianna, I don’t know what planet you live on,but it’s not facts.” PolitiFact decided that this was worth a look. After a relatively thorough accounting of Halliburton’s problems with overbilling and underperforming on its military contracts, they determined that Huffington’s statement was “Half True.” The reason? Apparently Huffington was not fair to the company, which may have merely overcharged the government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars due to “waste and inefficiency.”
There couldn’t be better news for a left-wing media critic. After all, getting it consistently wrong about a wide range of issues is a prerequisite to being hired as a syndicated pundit. So if it’s established that liberals on TV tend to be wrong, perhaps we’ll finally hear more left-wing voices in media.
Your example with Arianna Huffington is the most obvious problem with PolitiFact generally. Again and again, I read articles that make a clear case for “true” or “false” in support of a “half true” result. It seems as though they label a claim first, and _then_ make the argument; they will not change their initial determination, even when their research ultimately disproves it.
Harry Reid was recently offered this treatment. They claim that it was “half true” when Harry Reid said, “Sharron Angle wants to wipe out Social Security.” Why is it “half true”? According to PolitiFact, Angle has modulated her claim as of late. (This is questionable, however; her most recent comments just obfuscate; she is trying to avoid repeating what she said in the primary, but she is not repudiating it.) Politifact claims that Reid is not entirely right because recently Angle has been (wait for it), “less clear.” What a liar that Reid guy is!
I hope it is not too obvious to point out that this deserves a much longer discussion–say, in _Extra!_
FAIR could help unpack the funhouse mirror world of political labeling, where a center-right politician like Bill Clinton gets identified (without a fact-check) as a liberal. We could re-wind the yack shows to fact check some “liberals” like, say, Senator Hillary Clinton, and listen to her warn us of the dangers of Iraq’s weapons programs and the (grudging) necessity of invasion and occupation. FAIR should not spend much time covering the exposed flank of the corporate center of the Democratic party. Where’s FAIR’s check of, say, Obama on BP?
Peter,
You used the word inherit when, I believe, you meant inherent. Oops. FAIR should realize that spell check is no substitute for a living editor editor. If you’ve got an editor perhaps you might think of replacing them with an English major.
I did the editor editor thing on purpose. It’s called sarcasm.
To say Liberals are liars per say is a waste of breath.They are simply finding it harder and harder to come up with arguments in support of this president and his regime.As bad as Bush was ,(and at times he was)…..this Whitehouse is now a madhouse.But instead of seeing that,some People are getting their Irish up- and are becoming entrenched.Instead of cracking into a huge grin and looking across the isle to admit….”Ok you were right we made a BIG mistake.”The left has dug in.They refuse to see the cracks in the wall.And the right is tearing them to pieces for their troubles.When a fighter goes down a couple times they usually stop the fight.Maybe it is time to let Obama lay there.Stop propping him up.Because it is lunacy….and its beginning to look like a solid wall of deception.Deceiving others.Deceiving ones self.
What I see over and over is that Conservatives spew clichés, code-words and venom – especially behind pseudonyms. // Jean Clelland-Morin, your friendly, neighborhood, heathen lefty
You hit the nail on the head when you talked about the need to examine the statements of George Will for truth or falsity. Not just George Will but a whole raft of right-wingers. That is the problem with mainstream news, too: What stories do you cover? What language will you use to frame important questions? Bias is implicit in coverage of the news, it always has been. What stories do you put above the fold? What size headline do you use? Newspapers did it too.
Why is it michael e is able to put spaces between words but not sentences? And speaking of English, could he still be thinking about another President when he says “it’s time to let Obama lay”. or, considering the topic, was he afraid of saying “let Obama lie”? (Sorry, I prefer my punctuation outside the quotation marks).
There must be something to the party in power having more trouble with the truth. Or perhaps there’s just no point in checking the noisier and more outrageous liars; subtle lies may be the more insidious. And “sarcasm” is an unassailable defense, pointing out the subjectivity of evaluation of truth and half-truth. When is black and white not ever darker grey and lighter grey? And it ever will be. I’d like to see a program intended to help viewers/listeners “read” the greys (or, as my spell checker peculiarly insists only for the plural, grays), like reading between the lines of advertising, recognizing what is being said as much from what is un-said, and reading the ingredients list instead of just the healthful slogan on the front of the box. Give us the ingredients and let us decided whether we want to consume it.
To Ginger Lee Frank, ye person of a very cool name. You are very black and white concerning punctuation, but not so black and white concerning these scoundrels who have power over our lives. I think John McCain was that man of yours that would have lived in the esteemed grey zone. He would have been comfortable there. He seldom knew which side of the aisle he was on anyway. If a centrist was needed-he was it! He played the conservative though he wasn’t. And he came up against a snake oil salesmen who played the centrist though he couldn’t spell the word if pressed. Well John was voted down. Enter Obama. He talks the talk and walks the walk. Pure unadulterated hard hard left Liberal with dreams of grandeur and socialism dancing in his little pin head. He has made it easy to see right from wrong ,left from right. Because he is so wrong and soooo left. So just this one time, how about you allow people to see what is right before their very eyes. Democratic second hand smoke screens have proven bad for this nation’s health.
To michael e, ye of much bs. Gee, where to start with your poorly contrived sense of logic and use of the English language?
How about taking that log out of your eye (could be that tbag), so that you can see what your team has done to our country since 2000. “Instead of cracking into a huge grin and looking across the isle to admitâ┚¬Ã‚¦.”Ok you were right we made a BIG mistake. The left has dug in.They refuse to see the cracks in the wall”. The cracks are all yours, buddy, and there’s not enough putty in the USA to fix it. By the way, it’s aisle, not isle. Geesh!
Since when is President Obama “pure, unadulterated, hard, hard left” (see I put commas in your crummy sentence)? NOT! Nice try, small fry. You are clearly a liar and flamethrower when it comes to the facts. If he was what you claimed, we wouldn’t have two wars going on, there wouldn’t have been any off-shore drilling allowed, outsourcing of American jobs would be banned, strict regulation of banking, etc.
Speaking of pinhead…is that a dunce cap you’re wearing or are you just happy to see us?
Max American
Lots of hate there bud.Personal stuff worthy of any left wing neo lib.Friend of mine here is an English prof at a well known Ivy league school, and he is running about my house laughing after diagraming your sentences(6 mistakes).. as you are “attempting “to do with mine.Good lord you libs do like to shift the argument.You two go argue English 101.And take Obama with you who yesterday said AX instead of ask AGAIN!.Isnt this all so silly?Get back to the issues Poindexter.
First of all Im not a Republican.Second the Tea party is a new movement.3rd Are you really ,really still blaming the last big spender -Bush????My God when will you people take responsibility for the Job and office you now own?So really enough of your ridiculous attempts to stand up for this unqualified chowderhead.We are in two wars because BAM got the real security briefings moments after he was elected and realized he was talking out of his hat before…as you are now.He cant ban the things you named because good people are fighting back his attempts to do everything you mentioned.And if I was wearing a dunce cap ,and i was happy to see you,it would be because im joining your idiotic party.
Wow! A flame war on little ol’ Fair-Dot-Org!
If michael e can seriously claim that John McCain is a centrist (even using the highly skewed American scale), he cannot have spent much time reading the material on this site. Peter Hart wrote an excellent article in _Extra!_ during the 2008 election called, “The Press Corps’ Unshakeable [sic–I know! I know!] Crush on McCain”:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3369
I recommend it highly to anyone, but especially Mr. e.
What is with all of the talk about grammar? Blogs are, by definition, loose _and unedited_. But if you are going to complain, you should _not_ use “their” when you mean “his or her.” (I’m talking to you St Declan!) Where a question mark goes relative to a quotation mark is _always_ determined by whether it belongs to the quoted material or the sentence itself. (I’m talking to you Ginger Lee Frank!) It doesn’t matter whether you spell color with a “u” or not.
I’m sure you can find errors in my post. Flame on!
To Frank Moraes
Thanx for the comments on the great grammar debate.It was becoming an argument for the sake of argument.Glad you popped in and grounded the situation.
As far as calling McCain a centrist……Well yes that is overstating it.In “comparison”to Obama- I believe he was much more likely to meet somewhere in the middle .Not so much with his Democratic opponents who are bounding to the left, but with the American people who tend center right.
Before I say any more: what’s with the e. e. cummings-like name, michael e?
It seems you are trying to get into a Republicans vs. Democrats argument. Or conservative vs. liberal. I think that most people on this site would describe themselves as socialists–certainly, I would. Thus, the arguments found here will tend toward more fundamental issues like the effect of money on elections. Also: this site is dedicated to a critique of media reportage. Frankly, you will have more fun over at Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) or Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/). Not that you aren’t welcome to try to rankle members of the FAIR community. I just think you will find it less than fulfilling.
And that’s it for me on this page. If you wish to annoy me more, you must do it on another page!
Frank Moraes
e.e.cummings?Facinating.Food for thought.Im afraid the name was a typo.Nothing more interesting than that.I applaud you for simply saying” I am a socialist”.An honest debate with honest boundaries is possible.My problem with this administration is that they wont say those four words.And in this past election the press acted as advocates not reporters.This sight FAIR does sometimes seem dedicated to attack any media coverage not in line with liberal lockstep.So i will stay around if that is OK to give another point of view.See you here and about.
Peter Hart, you say in your piece, that it was “ironic” that Bill Clinton’s remarks were one of only two examples where democrats were seen as as speaking actually. Would you say this about remarks made by Obama? Obama is easily the biggest bullshitter in the history of the presidency. I assume in your “fact-checking” contest, that you’re speaking of some TV pundits, described by the mindless, as liberals. In this analysis, I suppose, an insufferable creep like Chris Matthews is a liberal. Clinton, in my view, was a moderate, and certainly not the right-winger some on this list mysteriously believe him to be. If anyone appears sympathetic with the right-wingers, it’s Obama.
I so glad I didn’t rely on PoliFact. I saw them get it wrong many times.
Oh, one more thing. I gave up on fact checking most conservatives/GOP/teabagger/Repubcons. They all use the same lying talking points, so you only have to fact check once. which is great, cause it save a lot of time. However, every now and then, one slips up and tells the truth…and it’s easy to tell when it happens…’cause Limbot wets his pants into the microphone.
From my own personal experiences, liberals will lie to your face in personal conversation if they think it will convince you.
I have literally called liberals out in person for direct, consistent lies and their only response is, “its not a lie when a liberal does it”.