Checking the fact checkers

[Amelia]

Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’

If you’ve ever found yourself engaged in a futile, one-sided argument with a politician on your TV screen, you’re hardly alone in your frustration. However, if you’re inclined to jot down such intemperate outbursts, and have the chutzpah to charge people for your services​—​you might have what it takes to join the ranks of one of journalism’s most popular and elite new breeds.

They call themselves “fact checkers,” and with the name comes a veneer of objectivity doubling as a license to go after any remark by a public figure they find disagreeable for any reason. Just look at the Associated Press to understand how the scheme works. The venerable wire service’s recent “fact check” of statements made at the November 12 GOP presidential candidates’ foreign policy debate was a doozy. Throwing no less than seven reporters at the effort, the piece came up with some unusual examples of what it means to correct verifiable truths.

....

The fact that bin Laden, the most wanted man on the planet, was living in a compound in Pakistan possibly for years may seem like a sign that our intelligence sources in the country leave something to be desired​—​but guess again, Newt.

....

While there’s been little examination of the broader phenomenon of media fact checking, the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs recently took a close look at PolitiFact. Here’s what they found:

A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts. In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged “false” or “pants on fire” over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent).​

You can believe that Republicans lie more than three times as often as Democrats. Or you can believe that, at a minimum, PolitiFact is engaging in a great deal of selection bias, to say nothing of pushing tendentious arguments of its own.

....

Long article, good read.

 

[Mad Scientist]

A number of Libs won't believe anything unless they see it on Wikipedia or FactCheck. This is probably why they think we Conservatives only watch FoxNews.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is why I like the boards. I consider ALL sources to be virtual biased rags. The only way to get at the semblance of truth is to take them all in, look at them from varying angles and in the end, you might just get to the truth.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I believe Republicans lie three times more than Democrats.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A number of Libs won't believe anything unless they see it on Wikipedia or FactCheck. This is probably why they think we Conservatives only watch FoxNews.

Like who?

 

[FA_Q2]

A number of Libs won't believe anything unless they see it on Wikipedia or FactCheck. This is probably why they think we Conservatives only watch FoxNews.

Like who?

TM, RDean et al. You know the culprits, don't play dumb

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A number of Libs won't believe anything unless they see it on Wikipedia or FactCheck. This is probably why they think we Conservatives only watch FoxNews.

Like who?

TM, RDean et al. You know the culprits, don't play dumb

I'm fully aware that their are idiots on both sides - but there's no one who "only" believes things from Wikipedia or FackCheck.

 

[MarcATL]

Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’

If you’ve ever found yourself engaged in a futile, one-sided argument with a politician on your TV screen, you’re hardly alone in your frustration. However, if you’re inclined to jot down such intemperate outbursts, and have the chutzpah to charge people for your services​—​you might have what it takes to join the ranks of one of journalism’s most popular and elite new breeds.

They call themselves “fact checkers,” and with the name comes a veneer of objectivity doubling as a license to go after any remark by a public figure they find disagreeable for any reason. Just look at the Associated Press to understand how the scheme works. The venerable wire service’s recent “fact check” of statements made at the November 12 GOP presidential candidates’ foreign policy debate was a doozy. Throwing no less than seven reporters at the effort, the piece came up with some unusual examples of what it means to correct verifiable truths.

....

The fact that bin Laden, the most wanted man on the planet, was living in a compound in Pakistan possibly for years may seem like a sign that our intelligence sources in the country leave something to be desired​—​but guess again, Newt.

....

While there’s been little examination of the broader phenomenon of media fact checking, the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs recently took a close look at PolitiFact. Here’s what they found:

A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts. In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged “false” or “pants on fire” over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent).​

You can believe that Republicans lie more than three times as often as Democrats. Or you can believe that, at a minimum, PolitiFact is engaging in a great deal of selection bias, to say nothing of pushing tendentious arguments of its own.

....

Long article, good read.

Did you ever stop to consider that the Republicans could be some !@#$%^)in liars?

Hmmmmm....!?!?

 

[Amelia]

Naturally I'm of the opinion that there is selection bias in the items PolitiFact chose to rate.