Bryan White gave Shirl Kennedy a “B” grade this time as researcher. However, Becky Bowers, listed as writer and researcher, was graded “F”. So that begs the question (in Bryan’s logical world), if Kennedy got a “B” how did the research count for Bowers, since we have no way of knowing how much research she did compared to Shirl. What if Bowers actually did more of the research, and Kennedy only assisted in a minor perfunctory way? That means that Bryan’s “B” grade for Kennedy made no sense, because he would have had to lift up Bowers' grade of “F” to include her above-average “B” research.
Bryan said “Kennedy apparently provided research appropriate for that focus and presumably was not involved in framing the story.” So she got a “B” for having more than 23 sources to determine only if “no private sector jobs were created with the stimulus.” Well how about Bowers? That list of sources did not list with each one the name of the person who actually did the review of those sources, or calling or interviewing. He only dismissed Kennedy because she wasn’t involved in framing the story. That doesn’t mean that Bowers should get some credit.
It can also mean Bryan’s “special top super duper secret formula grade compilation system” may be zero or below 50 points for F. It’s not what at one time was 93-100=A, 85-92=B, 77-84=C, 70-76=D, and anything below 70 Failing or F. Or some instructors who just did 10 point increments. Bryan’s must be well below 70, or even down to zero for F-. So for Bowers, her grade from Bryan as writer was SO low that even averaging in the B for her research responsibility, still gave her an F. Or maybe Bryan’s grading system is…..not really what he says it is, it just reflects his seeming animosity toward PolitiFact and his own inherent right-leaning belief that PF is left-leaning.
Other than that, the excuse of “hyperbole” was just that, an excuse. Bryan dismisses the Scott Campaign standing by their contention that the statement is literally true (and to say otherwise is “ridiculous”). PF notes the “hyperbole” and then shows that anecdotally, at least, it wasn’t hyperbole to some people, followed by an example of Scott himself actually being part owner of a company that’s going to hire because of the stimulus. Snaith “identified an argument” but that is just what it is: “an argument” for which there was very likely no sufficient evidence to support its “fitting well.” Expecting PF to find such evidence was asking it to do Olympic somersaults over other than where its research was clearly taking it, into a far more clouded territory of guesswork.
** He may disagree that the stimulus is the most effective use of funds, or argue as Snaith does that "it didn't do very much." But those aren’t the words he chose.** Counting the ways: Consideration of the multiplier effect as an ameliorator to even more job loss; no consideration for timing (i.e., recovery and job creation are taking longer than thought); the estimates of 167,000 to 206,000 public and private sector jobs created; Scott himself partially owning a company that will create 1,300 private sector jobs directly due to the stimulus….and most of all, 23 sources of research graded a B by a sublime bloviator, all together, that has to be more than just not doing much.
Postscript: Factcheck has confirmed that "Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill" along with comments addressing Rick Scott's, as well as the Republican Party's, dubious claims against Alex Sink.
 |
| If Becky had just framed the argument the way Bryan thinks it should be! |
| Title and Link | Rick Scott says the stimulus didn't create a single private sector job |
| Who? Affiliation | Rick Scott, Republican running for governor of Florida |
| Ruling | Pants on Fire |
| Checkers | Becky Bowers (Writer/Researcher); Shirl Kennedy, Researcher; John Bartosek, Editor |
| Number of Words | 1,477 |
| #Sources Cited | 23 |
| Argument Summary | Scott stated that not one private sector job has been created as a result of the ARRA (Federal stimulus bill). Although there has still been a loss of jobs, there is much evidence that private sector jobs have been created. |
| Bryan’s Argument | Rick Scott was just using hyperbole. Underlying argument of “the stimulus didn't do very much for private sector hiring ” was ignored. |
| Quick Interpretation | Not true. |
| My criticism: | Bryan’s argument rests on Sean Snaith’s statement that Scott’s statement was hyperbole. Just what would “more consideration” of the underlying argument be? Was there enough evidence that the stim didn’t do very much for private sector hiring? Is there a time limit consideration or is this “point in time”? Should consideration be given to economic cycles, especially in Florida? |
| Guidelines "PF Excuses" | Number 1: PF didn’t have to go there. |
| Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies | None except for the hyperbole, an “exaggeration” by Scott as to the extent of private sector unemployment in Florida. |
| DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING? | Not really. |
| My view | For a candidate who thinks “government is the problem”, it sure had a lot to do with his personal financial success. |
| Comments | I think Bryan gave Shirl Kennedy a “bad blog B.” ….Since PF mentioned it, here’s a similar claim by Scott Brown also rated Pants on Fire. |
| Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct) | Rick Scott was just using hyperbole. Although his statement taken literally is not true, it IS true that in reality the stimulus has not created very much in the way of private sector jobs. PF did not provide evidence of that reality (that the stimulus has created “very few jobs” to support the “hyperbole”). They only looked at whether it was literally true or false. |
| Bryan Rating | Three Pepés: Too much nuance required along with the Shirl Kennedy mystery B for above-average research which most likely proves his "didn't do very much" theory didn't do very much. |
| PF Rating | No Pepés: Scott’s campaign should be faulted for not correcting themselves. |
No comments:
Post a Comment