How to Beat the Fact-Checkers

[Lakhota]

By David Corn

Politicians have figured it out: When caught in a lie, attack the truth cops.

Editors' note: With Paul Ryan letting loose a string of whoppers at the GOP convention, Newsweek admitting it doesn't verify the accuracy of facts cited by its writers, and a top Romney aide defiantly proclaiming, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," political fact-checking has been a hot topic this campaign season. For our September/October issue, David Corn took an in-depth look at how the verification industry plays into the political lying game—and whether it makes any difference.

As Mitt Romney was buttoning up the Republican nomination this past spring, he addressed the annual convention of the American Society of News Editors in the cavernous ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, DC. He blasted President Obama for breaking a "promise" to keep unemployment below 8 percent—a charge that had previously earned Romney three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column. He also slammed the president for "apologizing for America abroad"—an accusation that PolitiFact had months earlier branded a "pants on fire" lie. And he accused Obama of adding "nearly as much public debt as all the prior presidents combined" (a statement already judged "an exaggeration" by FactCheck.org) and of cutting $500 million [sic] from Medicare (a "false" assertion according to PolitiFact).

A politician mangling the truth is hardly news. Yet what was notable about this moment was that the candidate felt no compunction about appearing before more than 1,500 journalists and repeating whoppers that their own colleagues had so roundly debunked. Nor was Romney challenged about any of these untruths when it came time to ask questions. He was able to peddle a string of officially determined falsehoods before a crowd of newspaper editors—repeat: a crowd of newspaper editors—and face absolutely no consequences. The uncomfortable question for the press: With the news cycle overwhelmed by the headline-of-the-nanosecond, and with politicians ignoring or openly challenging the truth cops, how much does the much-heralded political fact-checking industry really matter?

More: How to Beat the Fact-Checkers | Mother Jones

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Vel]

Sep 21, 2012 11:39am
President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program “Begun Under the Previous Administration”
Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday, President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush.
“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”
Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com
In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.
Previous programs involving ATF agents allowing guns to “walk” across the border so as to trace them were run during the Bush presidency, but not this particular “field-initiated program.”

President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program “Begun Under the Previous Administration” - ABC News

 

[AmericanFirst]

Libtards hate facts more.

 

[Papageorgio]

By David Corn

Politicians have figured it out: When caught in a lie, attack the truth cops.

Editors' note: With Paul Ryan letting loose a string of whoppers at the GOP convention, Newsweek admitting it doesn't verify the accuracy of facts cited by its writers, and a top Romney aide defiantly proclaiming, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," political fact-checking has been a hot topic this campaign season. For our September/October issue, David Corn took an in-depth look at how the verification industry plays into the political lying game—and whether it makes any difference.

As Mitt Romney was buttoning up the Republican nomination this past spring, he addressed the annual convention of the American Society of News Editors in the cavernous ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, DC. He blasted President Obama for breaking a "promise" to keep unemployment below 8 percent—a charge that had previously earned Romney three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column. He also slammed the president for "apologizing for America abroad"—an accusation that PolitiFact had months earlier branded a "pants on fire" lie. And he accused Obama of adding "nearly as much public debt as all the prior presidents combined" (a statement already judged "an exaggeration" by FactCheck.org) and of cutting $500 million [sic] from Medicare (a "false" assertion according to PolitiFact).

A politician mangling the truth is hardly news. Yet what was notable about this moment was that the candidate felt no compunction about appearing before more than 1,500 journalists and repeating whoppers that their own colleagues had so roundly debunked. Nor was Romney challenged about any of these untruths when it came time to ask questions. He was able to peddle a string of officially determined falsehoods before a crowd of newspaper editors—repeat: a crowd of newspaper editors—and face absolutely no consequences. The uncomfortable question for the press: With the news cycle overwhelmed by the headline-of-the-nanosecond, and with politicians ignoring or openly challenging the truth cops, how much does the much-heralded political fact-checking industry really matter?

More: How to Beat the Fact-Checkers | Mother Jones

Mother Jones!

Let us know when you use a site less nuttier than this one.

You are funny"

 

[Trajan]

Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’

snip-



Here’s a not-atypical case study. On November 7, 2010, newly elected Senator Rand Paul appeared on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour. One of the topics of discussion was pay for federal workers. “The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year,” Paul said. “The average private employee makes $60,000 a year.”

Given that the news these days often boils down to debates over byzantine policy details, Paul’s statement is about as close to an empirically verifiable fact as you’re likely to hear a politician utter.

And the numbers are reasonably clear. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis​—​yes, that’s a government agency​—​federal workers earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made on average $61,051 in total compensation. What’s more, the pay gap between the federal and private sectors has been growing substantially. A decade ago, average pay and benefits for federal workers was $76,187​—​federal civil servants have seen a 62 percent increase in their compensation since then, more than double the 30.5 percent increase in the private sector.

So federal workers are paid twice as much and their income has been rising over twice as fast. If that’s not out- rageous enough, from December 2007 to June 2009, the federal workforce saw a 46 percent increase in the number of employees with salaries over $100,000, a 119 percent increase in the number of those making over $150,000, and a 93 percent increase in the number of federal civil servants making over $170,000. Note that these figures do not include benefits, overtime, or bonuses.

Not only that, during Obama’s first two years in office, while the unemployment rate hovered near or above double digits, the size of the federal workforce increased by 7 percent. The president called for a federal pay freeze at the end of 2010; however, under the president’s supposed pay freeze, 1.1 million civil servants​—​the majority of the federal workforce​—​are still slated to get $2.5 billion in pay increases. And with the country on the verge of recession (again), 5 of the 10 richest counties in America now surround Washington, D.C. Given who the largest employer in the area is, this is hardly surprising.

Not only is what Senator Paul said about federal pay verifiably true, his simple recitation of the most basic facts of the matter doesn’t even begin to illustrate the extent of the problem.

Yet PolitiFact rated Senator Paul’s statement “false.” According to PolitiFact’s editors, because Paul did not explicitly say the figures he was citing include pay and benefits, he was being misleading. The average reader would assume he was only talking about salary. “BEA found that federal civilian employees earned $81,258 in salary, compared to $50,464 for private-sector workers. That cuts the federal pay advantage almost exactly in half, to nearly $31,000,” writes PolitiFact.

So the average federal employee makes a mere $31,000 more a year in salary than the average private sector worker​—​but also gets a benefits package worth four times what the average private sector worker gets.

more at-
Lies, Damned Lies, and

 

[del]

the cons like trajan, ignore the con lies, and the libs, like lakota, ignore the lib lies.

<yawn>

obvious hacks are obvious

 

[Lakhota]

The Weekly Standard? More wingnut distortions, diversions and lies.

 

[Lakhota]

the cons like trajan, ignore the con lies, and the libs, like lakota, ignore the lib lies.

<yawn>

obvious hacks are obvious

Actually, I much prefer facts and truth. However, in this lying wingnut environment one must fight fire with fire. It's sad when a former Mormon Bishop lies more than a hooker on crack.

 

[del]

the cons like trajan, ignore the con lies, and the libs, like lakota, ignore the lib lies.

<yawn>

obvious hacks are obvious

Actually, I much prefer facts and truth. However, in this lying wingnut environment one must fight fire with fire.

you wouldn't know fact nor truth if they grew teeth and bit you on your bony ass, you lying fuckstick

 

[Lakhota]

the cons like trajan, ignore the con lies, and the libs, like lakota, ignore the lib lies.

<yawn>

obvious hacks are obvious

Actually, I much prefer facts and truth. However, in this lying wingnut environment one must fight fire with fire.

you wouldn't know fact nor truth if they grew teeth and bit you on your bony ass, you lying fuckstick

Thanks for not saying fat ass.

 

[del]

Actually, I much prefer facts and truth. However, in this lying wingnut environment one must fight fire with fire.

you wouldn't know fact nor truth if they grew teeth and bit you on your bony ass, you lying fuckstick

Thanks for not saying fat ass.

i try to mix it up, hack.

 

[Yurt]

the cons like trajan, ignore the con lies, and the libs, like lakota, ignore the lib lies.

<yawn>

obvious hacks are obvious

and true to form...laktose ignored obama's lie about F&F

 

[Luddly Neddite]

By David Corn

Politicians have figured it out: When caught in a lie, attack the truth cops.

Editors' note: With Paul Ryan letting loose a string of whoppers at the GOP convention, Newsweek admitting it doesn't verify the accuracy of facts cited by its writers, and a top Romney aide defiantly proclaiming, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," political fact-checking has been a hot topic this campaign season. For our September/October issue, David Corn took an in-depth look at how the verification industry plays into the political lying game—and whether it makes any difference.

As Mitt Romney was buttoning up the Republican nomination this past spring, he addressed the annual convention of the American Society of News Editors in the cavernous ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, DC. He blasted President Obama for breaking a "promise" to keep unemployment below 8 percent—a charge that had previously earned Romney three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column. He also slammed the president for "apologizing for America abroad"—an accusation that PolitiFact had months earlier branded a "pants on fire" lie. And he accused Obama of adding "nearly as much public debt as all the prior presidents combined" (a statement already judged "an exaggeration" by FactCheck.org) and of cutting $500 million [sic] from Medicare (a "false" assertion according to PolitiFact).

A politician mangling the truth is hardly news. Yet what was notable about this moment was that the candidate felt no compunction about appearing before more than 1,500 journalists and repeating whoppers that their own colleagues had so roundly debunked. Nor was Romney challenged about any of these untruths when it came time to ask questions. He was able to peddle a string of officially determined falsehoods before a crowd of newspaper editors—repeat: a crowd of newspaper editors—and face absolutely no consequences. The uncomfortable question for the press: With the news cycle overwhelmed by the headline-of-the-nanosecond, and with politicians ignoring or openly challenging the truth cops, how much does the much-heralded political fact-checking industry really matter?

More: How to Beat the Fact-Checkers | Mother Jones

Mother Jones!

Let us know when you use a site less nuttier than this one.

You are funny"

So, in other words, you can PROVE the content is not true?

LOLOLOL

Its pretty dumb to attack the source unless you can prove its incorrect but you rw's don't let FACTS get in the way of a good lie, do you.

 

[Yurt]

More: How to Beat the Fact-Checkers | Mother Jones

Mother Jones!

Let us know when you use a site less nuttier than this one.

You are funny"

So, in other words, you can PROVE the content is not true?

LOLOLOL

Its pretty dumb to attack the source unless you can prove its incorrect but you rw's don't let FACTS get in the way of a good lie, do you.

you mean like your lie about ryan and hecklers?