Recently Michele Bachmann made another statement which PolitiFact (PF) ruled as False: “The top 1 percent of income-earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government." It generated a lot of commentary at the Facebook page, and a few posted why she was not asked—called or e-mailed-- to clarify her comments. I decided to interject some links to PolitiFact rulings on Bachmann along with this remark: (links embedded instead of displayed)
I think part of the reason Bachmann doesn’t get a break (as opposed to Pelosi) is she does not respond to PolitiFact when they ask her for more detail, or for her sources:
“Analyzing this comment is somewhat tricky, because Bachmann’s time frame is open to interpretation (and her office didn’t return our inquiry seeking an explanation).”
Others took note of my comment for which I got a few “thumbs up” or “likes” as well as this comment from a Julie Baker Morse: (emphasis added)
Bryan White just had to make an indirect response to me through Morse: (emphasis added)… for those complaining that Bachmann is treated differently by Politifact: I believe that their rating depends in part upon the perceived intent of those making the statements. Perhaps if Bachmann had not racked up so many untruths, and did not ignore Politifact's requests for clarification, this may have been rated differently. Untruths and fact misrepresentations for most politicians [from all parties] don't happen because THEY are stupid; it's because they believe that Americans are stupid enough to both believe them and re-elect them, no matter what they say and whether or not their statements have been proved false. (4/18/11 ~12:30 p.m.)
…Morse's is a fascinating observation. Pelosi makes a statement that is literally false, and says to PolitiFact that she meant something else. So PolitiFact rates the false statement "Half True" because Pelosi's math on what she meant to say was so stupendous. Presumably, if Bachmann says she meant to say all *income* taxes then her statement could turn half true in an instant.(4/19/11 3:30 a.m.)
And we call this fact checking?
Actually, like Pelosi, had Bachmann answered PF’s inquiries and said she meant just federal income taxes, her statement would turn to literally True in an instant (PF said that number was 39.5% using that measure, very close), but probably would merit a Half True, like Pelosi, because she “left out an important detail.”
PolitiFact cannot force Bachmann to clarify her statements; but to me, good public relations and just the mutual respect of returning a phone call or e-mail should compel a response. Even Republican John Kyl’s bizarre “not intended to be factual” explanation to CNN was a response. Personally, if it was me being quoted by PF, I would want to clarify my position. But clearly something’s wrong--and she doesn't help herself--if she chooses to ignore the fact checker who wants her to verify her statement, is just asking what she meant or wants to know her source.
It doesn’t mean, however, that her statement would always be false or incorrect because she doesn’t respond; PF could find her statement True, Mostly True or Half True. In fact, Bachmann made a statement in her Obama SOTU Message response in January that was ruled Half True, and that was one of the rulings I cited in my FB commentary. As noted, in the ruling PF stated she wouldn’t “return” their “inquiries.”
 |
| Just call PolitiFact back, Bach |
Bryan White engaged in a bit of sour grapes hyperbole (“Pelosi’s math” was “so stupendous”) as to what PF did when Nancy Pelosi responded to them for clarification on a statement she made about six million senior citizens not receiving meals due to proposed federal budget cuts (she told PF it was actually six million meals, not citizens, and provided her source), which PF ruled Half True since she “left out an important detail”. But as noted above, PF previously ruled Bachmann Half True without such clarification.
So yes, I call this fact checking. I’m not sure how else PolitiFact would do it. Perhaps the approach of PF’s ruling system is the real issue here.
No comments:
Post a Comment