Lil White Lies: Slim Jim Spin

Yes, there’s inflation at the grocery store—I’ve been there enough to see that. But in this review of a PolitiFact ruling on Sarah Palin’s statement about the cost of Slim Jims, for my conservative counterpart to claim increases in the cost of Slim Jims should be the sole basis of the ruling is not quite on the mark. Palin’s argument is that there’s recent, substantial inflation (and most importantly, Obama is to blame, of course): not just the Slim Jim scenario, but “every time I walk into that grocery store, a couple of pennies more.” What PolitiFact is pointing out is that the inflation isn’t as bad as she purports it to be.

Most people I know go to the grocery store about once a week, sometimes more. For the purpose of this example, let’s just use once a week. If a loaf of house brand whole wheat bread is $2.35 and it goes up 3 cents per week, that means in a year it should be just under $4.00. Is that the kind of inflation we’re presently experiencing? Because that’s what Palin is saying, and that is not true.

This is also an excellent case for comparative purposes of how my conservative counterpart wants it both ways. According to him:

I count it as a misinterpretation to think Palin was suggesting the high price Mr. Palin paid for his Slim Jim snack was representative of food inflation.

…if the Palins paid what they claimed for a Slim Jim it wasn't entirely because of a rise in the suggested retail price. It is likely that ConAgra has increased the price during the past year…

PolitiFact sees an argument implied in Palin's anecdote. PolitiFact ignores alternate interpretations such as the one I've suggested that make the implied argument irrelevant to Palin's point.

First off, Bryan says ConAgra likely increased the price during the last year... for the sake of argument, let’s say he’s correct. Does this justify the price for a Slim Jim going from 99 cents to $2.69? Does their increase reflect exploding inflation? Even if ConAgra increased prices, if we ignore everything else Palin said, her statement might make Mostly False. And that’s what Bryan wants writer Louis Jacobson to do simply on the basis of a “likely.”

Secondly, I don’t know how that would make the “implied argument irrelevant to Palin’s point.” We’re still talking about recent, rampant inflation and it just isn’t there.

Thirdly, here is a case where Bryan does a reversal and wants to focus on a singular point, where in most other cases he argues it’s the broader “underlying argument" (and his interpretation thereof). This is a great example of his own stated bias tainting his analysis. If this had been a Democrat with a False, he’d probably write that Jacobson failed to pay attention to the importance of the underlying argument, that this should be Pants on Fire. But this is a Republican with a False, so Jacobson failed to focus on the statement itself.

The whole purpose of Palin’s conversation with Newsweek about inflation was to extol her so-called economic knowledge….by mentioning the price of Slim Jims. But under scrutiny, neither her anecdote nor her analysis held water.

And I have but one word to those who scoff at the type of retail establishment affecting the price charged: Aldi. I bet they sell Slim Jim’s (most likely generic), and they’re a helluva LOT less than $2.69. But Palin probably never heard of them, and probably neither has Bryan White.