Maddow noted that while PF found both statements to be true using BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data, it initially rated it Half True, and she displayed the text of its reasoning:
Obama is correct on both counts when using private-sector job numbers. But he went too far when he implicitly credited his administration policies. So we rate the statement Half True.
Maddow took issue with the fact that Obama credited businesses, saying “businesses have created more than 3 million jobs” not “I, Barack Obama” or “my administration” or “the Stimulus” or “my policies.” She jokingly said something to the effect that “Obama didn’t wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say ‘good morning, businesses!’”
She noted that PolitiFact reviewed it again and then issued an update, upgrading the ruling from Half True to Mostly True. Based on what I’ve seen in cases like this, it appears PolitiFact will not move the Truth-o-Meter needle too far, thereby admitting something it investigated and ruled on turned out to be almost the opposite. Loath to admit to such gross errors, it will try to stand by its ruling come hell or high water, and if it moves it, it will be a one notch, which is what it did here.
Maddow then concluded that she had had it with PolitiFact and then “terminated their position” in the inimitable Grand Vulgarian Donald Trump fashion along with a few other choice criticisms.
"PolitiFact, you are fired. You are a mess! You are fired! You are undermining the definition of the word fact in the English language by pretending to it in your name. The English language wants its word back. You are an embarrassment. You sully the reputation of anyone who cites you as an authority on fact-ishness, let alone fact. You are fired."
But in the long thread of angry Facebook comments (for which most liberal-media-bashers would chomp at the bit to deride), the publicized correction and Maddow’s televised dismantling of PF’s ruling, there wasn’t a whisper from my conservative counterpart and his partner in crime over on the “red” side of politifact detractors. Nope, while they were both busy on Facebook at the same time, Bryan White going completely non sequitor over another Obama SOTU remark on spilled milk, and Jeff Dyberg beating the dead horse called Solyndra one more time, they somehow failed to notice this one.
In fact, the corrected Obama ruling was right next to the spilled milk ruling. It had a great deal more comments—more than double that of the spilled milk ruling--and being as it was a straight sort of “numbers” claim, it should have attracted Bryan’s or Jeff’s attention. Here’s the snipped screen print showing their side-by-side placement on PolitiFact's Facebook page:
 |
| Bryan White appeared to only be interested in Obama's spilt milk even though the subject ruling was right "next" to him. |
Anyway, as the word of Maddow’s "firing" got around, commenters started to do the same thing on PF’s Facebook page under this ruling—proclaiming “PolitiFact you’re fired!”. Most of the comments were the typical invective-without-consideration, but one of the few constructive ones came from one Edward Lynch:
Politifact, please consider that not everyone reads the entire article. If you read just the quote and "half true" (or now "mostly true") for this one, you will come away from it believing that this completely factual statement is not entirely true. You need to include your perceived implication or the context that affected your rating right up there with the quote (and include it in the Facebook post).
While PolitiFact may not have the space or inclination to do that, if they could, it might be helpful. Trying to find a short, humorous take on the underlying argument is not easy especially when you’re subjected to time constraints like PF’s writers are.
This ruling clearly belongs in the annals of PolitiFact detractors, but so far it looks like PolitiFact Bias is engaging in its own pronounced “selection bias”—more commonly known as “cherry picking.” The rub is when it goes against the wrong side. Bryan White has claimed he tries to look for it on both sides, because he needs as many examples of PolitiFact’s bias as he can get. I’ll be waiting and if I see him do anything on this, I’ll post it. But I won’t hold my breath.
5 comments:
Now let me get this straight.
*Food stamps up 45%
*Federal Handouts up 32%
*The GDP collapse to 1.7% for the year
*Gross public debt surpasses 100% of GDP.
*US misery index is at a 28 year high
*US drops tenth place in economic freedom behind countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Chile, and Irland
But so what? What is important to the liberal elitist or in the State of the Unon adress is who created the 3 millon jobs in the country (at a cost of over a million dollars per job to the taxpayers).
Below is a list of Evidence to feed in the blogger's truth meter. For like Snow White's Stepmother who needed a mirror to recognize beauty, the blogger of this site needs a truth meter,to recognize reality:
http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/2011-gdp-2012-1
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-usa-economy-misery-idUSTRE79I7IY20111020
You don’t get it, Rich. The purpose of “Grading PolitiFact Liberal Style” is a direct response to another blogger who has a category called “Grading PolitiFact.” He is a conservative who admits to his ideology, but it permeates his posts in that he believes PolitiFact has a liberal bias. At first I just published criticisms of his Grading PolitiFact posts, but then came up with this to show how PolitiFact could be found (by liberals) to have conservative bias as well. I guess that’s to say when I write these it doesn’t necessarily reflect my own opinion, it’s just to counter his. In this case, I used something Rachel Maddow had already done from her MSNBC show. Yes, some of your points are true and could be used to say that Obama’s two claims are nuanced because there are other economic indicators that are not so positive. But that was not the point of the post. Say, for example, McCain won and he said this in a SOTU with the indicators you mention the same, PolitiFact would most likely have given him the same rating as Obama; they would have not considered those other indicators for him, either. I don’t believe they should consider them because then it becomes too subjective; my problem is with gross jobs and net jobs, which PolitiFact sometimes has a hard time getting straight.
One other thing: Your claim of the 3 million jobs costing the taxpayers over a million dollars each is blatantly, pants on fire false. I’m guessing you’re using the amount of the deficit that’s been added while Obama was president and dividing by the number of jobs. So by your own logic, under Bush job creation cost taxpayers about $1.67 million per job. But then, “deficits didn’t matter” until now, right? There was no Tea Party when Cheney said that in 2002; by 2008 deficits were at a 50-year high, and I bet you didn’t notice then—you only noticed when there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
One note:
Obama said
"In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.
"Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005." (emphasis mine)
So there is some level of implicit credit he is giving to his policies. It is debatable whether or not this is enough to justify a "Mostly True," but it is not obviously a bad choice. Ploitifact admitted their mistake in the initial "Half true" rating was in error, but their choice to move it to a "Mostly True" sounds pretty well justified (coming from a political Liberal who is by default Skeptical of Politicians and the media, btw)
I just thought this deserved mention.
Don't get me wrong, I do completely agree with the central point of this post that Bryan is failing to control for his own political bias in his "research" into the political bias of politifact.
http://quibblingpotatoes.blogspot.com/2011/05/politifact-truth-index-part-3-breakdown.html
Thanks so much for your comments! Yes I'd agree MORE with the "some level of implicit credit" than I would on food stamps and misery index. I was very busy on slicing and dicing the 2011 Truth-o-Meter stats and so I "borrowed" this one from Rachel Maddow, particularly when I noticed the outcry on Facebook. IMHO this should be Mostly True. But I am trying to convey what Bryan is doing from the liberal perspective.
Post a Comment