On July 4, PolitiFact published a Mailbag issue in which readers took it to task for some of its rulings from the month of June. While I try to critically think on just about everything, especially when it comes to grading PolitiFact in a liberal style, it seems to me that more “thinkers” make for better ideas and insights. And as I haven’t done much lately in the “Grading PolitiFact Liberally” area, this mailbag gave me the opportunity to catch up. Because some of the readers have some compellingly good reasons for either upgrading a Democrat or downgrading a Republican—for a total of FIVE rulings. So let’s get started:
1. Liberals should just revere that Palin-speak!
Several readers charged that we [PolitiFact] were too soft in giving former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a Barely True -- rather than a False or Pants on Fire -- for her comment that "Part of (Paul Revere’s) ride was to warn the British that were already there that, 'Hey, you're not going to succeed.' "
One reader wrote, "Going to your definition of Barely True, the ‘element of truth’ you were referring to was that he ‘warned the British.’ But he did not, in fact or in deed, warn the British. He bluffed the British, since his intention was to gain his freedom, not to give them notice of danger. The statement should be correctly be rated False.
Another reader, tongue half-way in cheek, offered a justification to rate Palin’s comment True.
"Technically, she was right since there was no America yet. All of the citizens in the area were still considered British subjects, and any warning given by Revere would certainly have been heard by British subjects that were still loyal to the King, as well as those that wanted their freedom from the crown," the reader wrote.
Chris Wallace of Fox News got it right on this one: Palin “messed up.” I mean, I’m sure Revere intended to get captured by the British just so he could warn them. As for the “tongue half-way in cheek” excuse most likely offered by some sublimely bloviating type, Wikipedia explains:
So, why then the secrecy and how did those who were loyal to the King know the signals? Anyway, Palin could well have merited a False on this one. Score 1.Riding through present-day Somerville, Medford, and Arlington, Revere warned patriots along his route, many of whom set out on horseback to deliver warnings of their own. By the end of the night there were probably as many as 40 riders throughout Middlesex County carrying the news of the army's advance. Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"): His mission depended on secrecy, the countryside was filled with British army patrols, and the Massachusetts colonists (who were predominantly English in ethnic origin[43]) still considered themselves British.
2. POW! BAM! It's Bachmann!
We also received a number of comments suggesting that we were too lenient on Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann when she said, "The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs." We rated that statement Barely True.
"Hey guys, you blew it," wrote one reader. "The CBO did not say that 800,000 jobs will disappear -- it said that 800,000 workers might disappear. The jobs that they occupied like would still exist to be filled by other workforce participants. This would reduce the unemployment rate slightly, make the workers seeking the vacated jobs better off and presumably make the disappearing workers better off, since leaving would be their choice."
This one is kind of sad—800,000 people will no longer have to work because they don’t have to just for the insurance. Most of the jobs would still be there. When some of those people leave because they now have health insurance, they will necessarily have to be replaced. In other words, in a sense, it’s creating jobs, not killing them. Bachmann distorts this CBO extrapolation way out of line in a disingenuous way. Not only that, she repeated it. Misleading, says PolitiFact? Your Factcheck.org cohorts are calling it flat out false: (emphasis added)
■The three-term congresswoman repeated — on two Sunday shows — the false claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the federal health care law will "cost the economy 800,000 jobs." The CBO never said that. It said there will be a "small" impact on jobs.
I think Bachmann definitely qualifies for another Pants on Fire…or at least a False…and given she likes to power-distort things to her ideological benefit, PolitiFact better watch it because she might say PolitiFact confirmed it to be True…since we already know Republicans like to leave out the Barely.
3. Feel I’m going back to Massachusetts. David Axelrod received a Half True ruling on his statement with regard to the performance of the Massachusetts economy job-wise when Mitt Romney was governor, which was fact-checked to be “True”—however, Axelrod was awarded a Half True because PF decided to let Romney off the hook as to how much of that was his responsibility.
Several readers disagreed with our Half True rating for Obama adviser David Axelrod’s statement that when Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation.
"Your argument is that while the claim is true, perhaps Romney is not responsible," one reader wrote. "Unfortunately, this doesn't matter. Your job is to evaluate a claim, not its impact. While the impact makes for good analysis (and is important to note), it should not be a part of the Truth-O-Meter ruling." The reader added that "the worst part is that this signals a drastic change (and inconsistency) in your rulings."
The reader cited other claims rated True or Mostly True -- by Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, then-Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow --- that do not adhere to the same split-ruling format.
(PolitiFact Editor Bill Adair responds: You're right that we have not always been consistent on our ratings for these types of claims. We've developed a new principle that is reflected in the Axelrod ruling and should be our policy from now on. The principle is that statistical claims that include blame or credit like this one will be treated as compound statements, so our rating will reflect 1) the relative accuracy of the numbers and 2) whether the person is truly responsible for the statistic.)
Well I can see my conservative counterpart is gonna jump all over this one big time. Bill Adair just admitted that PF has been inconsistent at times. So this should offer up an opportunity for Bryan White: he needs to find “split-ruling” claims of just this type, and count how many times it went in either party’s favor. Well, if he doesn’t , I might. But I do agree with Adair, as well as with this ruling…and being as they cut the Republican some slack when you’d think they wouldn’t being as they’re so liberally biased, I say, Score 3.
It should be noted that this same claim was used by John McCain against Romney during the primaries in 2008, and Factcheck.org ruled what John McCain said was true….regardless of what Romney did.
4. Pawlenty that’s False. This one sort of mirrors the previous Half True, because we have another split statement. In this case, however, a Barely True was awarded.
One reader took issue with our Barely True rating for Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. We gave Pawlenty a Barely True for his claim that Obama promised he would cut the deficit in half but instead will at least double it
"Have I suddenly been transported into the Bizarro world?" the reader wrote. "Oh, that's because in his statement, he correctly repeated what Obama's pledge was. Well whooptie-doo for him! So, if I say, ‘The sun rises in the East, and Republicans want to eat all of your children,’ I'll get a Barely True as well, because some of my statement was accurate?"
But it does not qualify for a Half True because although Pawlenty repeated Obama’s campaign promise, he severely exaggerated the amount of the debt as if, as this writer put it, Republicans want to eat all of our children.
It also reminds me of an excuse that my conservative counterpart often uses to rationalize exaggerated claims by Republicans: to say that PolitiFact FAILED to recognize them as hyperbole…especially the part Pawlenty added on—“he’s going to multiply it by two, three, four or five." But as I’ve said before and I will say again, hyperbole is hyperbole when it is immediately recognizable as such. This was not. This could have easily been a False instead of a Barely True. Score 4.
5. Revenge of the Giant Tax Man. Finally, this ruling of Barely True was probably a better Half True, on James Clyburn (Democrat Rep.-SC) claiming allowing tax cuts to expire only for the very wealthy was not raising taxes on anybody.
Several readers disagreed with our Barely True rating for a statement by Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., that "we do not want to raise anybody's tax rates. That's never been on the table."
The readers argued that we unfairly labeled as a tax increase the position -- held by many Democrats, including the president -- that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire at the end of 2012. That would result in the top tax bracket rising to the rates that prevailed under President Bill Clinton.
"The Democrats are not calling for any tax increase," a reader wrote. "What they are doing is calling for an end to a temporary reduction in taxes. Under the law, the tax rate without any legislation to change it will result in taxes being returned to the pre-Bush levels. … This could be compared to letting a coupon expire. You could also compare it to the sale of the product at the store where you normally shop -- the price is set, and a discount is created for a specified period, then the price returns."
The Democrats, along with Obama, calling “for an end to the temporary reduction of taxes” specifically for high income earners, a very small segment of the population, was echoed throughout this ruling on a statement by James Clyburn. It was simply about letting a temporary tax cut expire versus proposing a permanent increase. There was a discussion of ending tax loop holes, which is in effect a tax increase—but it is not increasing tax rates per se. Given this, Lou Jacobson’s concluding claim of tax increases being the “broad, obvious interpretation” to viewers was rather subjective. So.....score 5!
The BIG question is: Did my conservative counterpart review any of these rulings at his blog? No, nary a one, out of the fifty (50)-plus he’s looked at this past year. Must be his selection bias includes confirmation bias. So he wasn't going to waste his time with these.
No comments:
Post a Comment