One of the many so-called “proofs” of liberal bias on the part of PolitiFact (PF) offered by my conservative counterpart was the “snark” it displayed with regard to Michele Bachmann in some of its initial rulings on her. I’ve noted since that if there was indeed snark, it has substantially slipped, but it may still be there today, only not on the part of PolitiFact.
The 50 “rulings” of four fact-checkers on Michele Bachmann, as I noted before, contained ten statements which had been fact-checked by more than one fact-checker, resulting in 16 duplicates. Let’s take a look at some of these.
The 50 “rulings” of four fact-checkers on Michele Bachmann, as I noted before, contained ten statements which had been fact-checked by more than one fact-checker, resulting in 16 duplicates. Let’s take a look at some of these.
The $105 billion hidden in Obamacare (March). Covered by all four fact-checkers, the rulings ranged from Mostly False (PF and FactCheck.org), False by the MPR PoliGraph, and a full Pants on Fire Four Pinnochios from Glenn Kessler’s The Fact Checker. A small bit of snark surfaced in his conclusion: (italics added)
There is no "bombshell" except Bachmann's bombast.
She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was "hidden" does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law.
FactCheck.org said Bachmann was “wrong” on the $105 Billion, twice, first in the headline and then: (italics added)
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim…is way off base…Bachmann is just wrong to characterize the mandated appropriations in the health care law as "hidden." It was, as the saying goes, hidden in plain sight.
I assigned a Mostly False to this one, but it could have qualified for a “False.” The MPR PoliGraph gave it a False. PolitiFact’s ruling, on the other hand, was clearly minus the snark, and gave her the benefit of the doubt, awarding her a Mostly False. So much for "liberal bias."
The 800,000-jobs-killing Obamacare (June). All four fact-checkers selected this statement as well, and in this case they all agreed on the ruling of Mostly False, since the CBO estimated there would be a “small impact.” That is, except for FactCheck.org who took it a little further calling it an outright “false claim,” so I classified it likewise. They were pretty clear on this, headlining the check “Repeating a Falsehood on Healthcare” along with a twist of snark, if you want to call it that: (italics added)
Bachmann also continued to push a falsehood about the federal health care law and jobs, distorting the Congressional Budget Office's analysis. Not once, but twice…. Bachmann, and other Republicans, have repeatedly twisted the CBO's findings, ignoring the full explanation in its analysis.
You can see what I am up against in making these ad hoc ratings classifications for FactCheck.org as there can be nuances in the reviews that seem to defy the rating system. Although, it seems we get agreement that it looks False or Misleading, it’s just “how much” it’s False or Misleading. It should also be noted that I've looked at this one before in Grading PolitiFact Liberal Style, contending PolitiFact may have graded her too lightly.
For the Washington Post Fact Checker, there’s also the situation of what Glenn Kessler calls “blended” rulings. In Bachmann’s case this was Two Pinnochios, which I’ve translated into “Mostly False.” But it was awarded for a combined total of eight Bachmann statements, essentially as an average. So it could be more or less for this particular statement. In this case the "blended" ruling worked out. But it’s possible it doesn’t, which I’ll discuss in another post.
For the Washington Post Fact Checker, there’s also the situation of what Glenn Kessler calls “blended” rulings. In Bachmann’s case this was Two Pinnochios, which I’ve translated into “Mostly False.” But it was awarded for a combined total of eight Bachmann statements, essentially as an average. So it could be more or less for this particular statement. In this case the "blended" ruling worked out. But it’s possible it doesn’t, which I’ll discuss in another post.
Limousine Liberals (June). PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and The Washington Post Fact Checker all gave a “Mostly False” to “Bachmann blam[ing] Obama for a 73 percent rise in the federal government's limousine fleet.”
Here’s The Washington Post Fact Checker’s (Glenn Kessler) succinct response to Bachmann’s above claim as made on CBS’ Face The Nation:
This assertion elicited a chuckle from Schieffer, who questioned whether this really amounts to much money. Bachmann’s statistic comes from a report by iwatch news, a Web site from the Center on Public Integrity, but the full article provides a lot of context missing from Bachmann’s statement.
For instance, much of the increase came in Obama’s first eight months in office, so the purchases could have reflected requests made by the Bush administration.
Another problem is that the General Services Administration says the numbers are not reliable because the term “limousine” is not defined and so it could include protective duty vehicles- — not fancy cars to ferry what Bachmann called “bureaucrats.”
Whose Default is It? (July) Three fact checkers—The Washington Post Fact Checker, FactCheck.org and MPR PoliGraph--weighed in on Bachmann’s downplaying the potential impact of not increasing the debt ceiling, all awarding her another Mostly False. Appearing at a press conference with other Republican congressman, she said “…It is merely the president's obligation, and the Congress's, to make sure that the interest is paid on the debt” in case of default.
"The interest on the debt isn't any more than 10 percent of what we're taking in... And so, the Treasury secretary can very simply pay the interest on the debt first then we're not in default."
PolitiFact, for its part, did not make a ruling, instead, published an informative article by Louis Jacobson called “How Bad would Default Be for U.S. Creditworthiness” and in it referred to Bachmann’s claim, stating in his conclusion “Were it not for the unusual timeline of developments, we would likely have rated Bachmann’s claims False.” The timeline included statements by ratings agencies of a possible downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt following her statements. Jacobson felt it wouldn’t be fair to Bachmann to rate her given she made her statements before they came out…which I think is being too fair to Bachmann, because he had enough from the experts to pin her down to at least a Mostly False.
Next up (and next up), trying to reconcile what looks like two separate statements with contradictory rulings by the fact-checkers.
Postscript 8/19/11: A fifth fact-checker, AZ Fact Check 2011: Keeping Arizona Honest, did a review of Bachmann's statement that Obamacare would kill 800,000 jobs. They awarded her "No Stars" which translates to "Misleading" and is basically in agreement with the other four fact-checkers.
Postscript 8/19/11: A fifth fact-checker, AZ Fact Check 2011: Keeping Arizona Honest, did a review of Bachmann's statement that Obamacare would kill 800,000 jobs. They awarded her "No Stars" which translates to "Misleading" and is basically in agreement with the other four fact-checkers.
No comments:
Post a Comment