Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"The amount of attention paid to Chris Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi, at the same time, the coverage of the IRS, pale in significance." Rove said.
In this fact-check we decided to focus on the comparison between the events, and the media coverage, in New Jersey and in Libya.
Our ruling
Rove said that the coverage of Christie pales "in significance" to the coverage of Benghazi. When news of the attacks on Benghazi broke, coverage was widespread, and it continued through congressional hearings. Moreover, a lot of the coverage questioned the administrations narrative and response to the attacks. Indeed, Christie has occupied much of the conversation, but it was also in a relatively slow news week. Benghazi garnered significant coverage, even during the height of the presidential election.
Perhaps the outcome of those reports didnt unearth the conspiracy conservatives alleged and hoped for. More is still likely to come out, and Republicans continue to keep it in the news. But to insinuate the mainstream media ignored the attacks while putting Christie through the ringer goes too far. We rate Roves statement False.
Karl Rove says media coverage of Benghazi pales to coverage of Chris Christie bridge scandal | PunditFact
"The amount of attention paid to Chris Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi, at the same time, the coverage of the IRS, pale in significance." Rove said.
In this fact-check we decided to focus on the comparison between the events, and the media coverage, in New Jersey and in Libya.
snip
Our ruling
Rove said that the coverage of Christie pales "in significance" to the coverage of Benghazi. When news of the attacks on Benghazi broke, coverage was widespread, and it continued through congressional hearings. Moreover, a lot of the coverage questioned the administrations narrative and response to the attacks. Indeed, Christie has occupied much of the conversation, but it was also in a relatively slow news week. Benghazi garnered significant coverage, even during the height of the presidential election.
Perhaps the outcome of those reports didnt unearth the conspiracy conservatives alleged and hoped for. More is still likely to come out, and Republicans continue to keep it in the news. But to insinuate the mainstream media ignored the attacks while putting Christie through the ringer goes too far. We rate Roves statement False.
I wonder if Repubs still tout Politifact as a good source or was it only for the lie of the year. We'll see...
I wonder if Repubs still tout Politifact as a good source or was it only for the lie of the year. We'll see...
Dude I litterally just posted this. Its NO WAY you read any of it.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ove-says-media-coverage-benghazi-pales-signi/
"The amount of attention paid to Chris Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi, at the same time, the coverage of the IRS, pale in significance." Rove said.
In this fact-check we decided to focus on the comparison between the events, and the media coverage, in New Jersey and in Libya.
snip
Our ruling
Rove said that the coverage of Christie pales "in significance" to the coverage of Benghazi. When news of the attacks on Benghazi broke, coverage was widespread, and it continued through congressional hearings. Moreover, a lot of the coverage questioned the administrations narrative and response to the attacks. Indeed, Christie has occupied much of the conversation, but it was also in a relatively slow news week. Benghazi garnered significant coverage, even during the height of the presidential election.
Perhaps the outcome of those reports didnt unearth the conspiracy conservatives alleged and hoped for. More is still likely to come out, and Republicans continue to keep it in the news. But to insinuate the mainstream media ignored the attacks while putting Christie through the ringer goes too far. We rate Roves statement False.
I wonder if Repubs still tout Politifact as a good source or was it only for the lie of the year. We'll see...
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ove-says-media-coverage-benghazi-pales-signi/
"The amount of attention paid to Chris Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi, at the same time, the coverage of the IRS, pale in significance." Rove said.
In this fact-check we decided to focus on the comparison between the events, and the media coverage, in New Jersey and in Libya.
snip
Our ruling
Rove said that the coverage of Christie pales "in significance" to the coverage of Benghazi. When news of the attacks on Benghazi broke, coverage was widespread, and it continued through congressional hearings. Moreover, a lot of the coverage questioned the administrations narrative and response to the attacks. Indeed, Christie has occupied much of the conversation, but it was also in a relatively slow news week. Benghazi garnered significant coverage, even during the height of the presidential election.
Perhaps the outcome of those reports didnt unearth the conspiracy conservatives alleged and hoped for. More is still likely to come out, and Republicans continue to keep it in the news. But to insinuate the mainstream media ignored the attacks while putting Christie through the ringer goes too far. We rate Roves statement False.
I wonder if Repubs still tout Politifact as a good source or was it only for the lie of the year. We'll see...
ONLY when it says what they like
Dude I litterally just posted this. Its NO WAY you read any of it.
I am a very adept speed reader. Anyhow, moving along.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ove-says-media-coverage-benghazi-pales-signi/
snip
I wonder if Repubs still tout Politifact as a good source or was it only for the lie of the year. We'll see...
ONLY when it says what they like
remind us of why you ignore democrat voter fraud and only focus on republican voter fraud?
hack
Karl Rove says media coverage of Benghazi pales to coverage of Chris Christie bridge scandal | PunditFact
snip
I wonder if Repubs still tout Politifact as a good source or was it only for the lie of the year. We'll see...
ONLY when it says what they like
remind us of why you ignore democrat voter fraud and only focus on republican voter fraud?
hack
"
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)."
Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics
"When PolitiFact Editor Bill Adair was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal in August of 2009, he explained how statements are picked:
"We choose to check things we are curious about. If we look at something and we think that an elected official or talk show host is wrong, then we will fact-check it."
"If that is the methodology, then why is it that PolitiFact takes Republicans to the woodshed much more frequently than Democrats?
One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.
However, there is no evidence offered by PolitiFact that this is their calculus in decision-making.
Nor does PolitiFact claim on its site to present a 'fair and balanced' selection of statements, or that the statements rated are representative of the general truthfulness of the nation's political parties or the elected officials involved."
ONLY when it says what they like
remind us of why you ignore democrat voter fraud and only focus on republican voter fraud?
hack
I, like yourself, have no idea wtf you are talking about
"
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)."
Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics
"When PolitiFact Editor Bill Adair was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal in August of 2009, he explained how statements are picked:
"We choose to check things we are curious about. If we look at something and we think that an elected official or talk show host is wrong, then we will fact-check it."
"If that is the methodology, then why is it that PolitiFact takes Republicans to the woodshed much more frequently than Democrats?
Repubs lie more often is a possibility
One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.
However, there is no evidence offered by PolitiFact that this is their calculus in decision-making.
Just like I said lol
Nor does PolitiFact claim on its site to present a 'fair and balanced' selection of statements, or that the statements rated are representative of the general truthfulness of the nation's political parties or the elected officials involved."
What? LOL. Using the old "what they dont say" logic. Well, they dont say that they are humans either therefore they must be alien.
Poor Kosher
Dude I litterally just posted this. Its NO WAY you read any of it.
I am a very adept speed reader. Anyhow, moving along.
And yet you still can't find a job.
Why can't you speed read through the 'help wanted' section?
"
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)."
Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics
"When PolitiFact Editor Bill Adair was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal in August of 2009, he explained how statements are picked:
"We choose to check things we are curious about. If we look at something and we think that an elected official or talk show host is wrong, then we will fact-check it."
"If that is the methodology, then why is it that PolitiFact takes Republicans to the woodshed much more frequently than Democrats?
Repubs lie more often is a possibility
Just like I said lolOne could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.
However, there is no evidence offered by PolitiFact that this is their calculus in decision-making.
What? LOL. Using the old "what they dont say" logic. Well, they dont say that they are humans either therefore they must be alien.Nor does PolitiFact claim on its site to present a 'fair and balanced' selection of statements, or that the statements rated are representative of the general truthfulness of the nation's political parties or the elected officials involved."
Poor Kosher
I am a very adept speed reader. Anyhow, moving along.
And yet you still can't find a job.
Why can't you speed read through the 'help wanted' section?
Irrelevant post is irrelevant. Perhaps you could speed read your way through Obamacare. Moving on.
And yet you still can't find a job.
Why can't you speed read through the 'help wanted' section?
Irrelevant post is irrelevant. Perhaps you could speed read your way through Obamacare. Moving on.
Why would I do that? I have a job and I have insurance. Two things you seem to be allergic to.
remind us of why you ignore democrat voter fraud and only focus on republican voter fraud?
hack
I, like yourself, have no idea wtf you are talking about
I doubt you have any clue what you're talking about either. I destroyed your premise in one post, I think you're still a bit dazed and confused, CC. Sit down before you hurt yourself.
