A Case for PF Wisconsin Right Wing Bias

While some try as best they can to prove that PolitiFact National has a left wing bias, there are a number of good reasons why it most likely doesn’t exist at national level.

1. The selection bias allegation is assumed to be only a party-related bias, contrary to PolitiFact’s repeated claim that is a newsworthy bias, and that ALL PolitiFact National writers/researchers/editors are liberal (and have dispensed with journalistic training in objectivity), for which one of its most vocal critics has provided NO evidence except for his own opinions of an anecdotal review of its rulings,  tainted with his own admitted conservative bias.

2. That other fact checkers, such as FactCheck.Org and the Washington Post FactChecker, check many of the same claims and (about 99% of the time) make similar findings, so therefore, it would have to be proven they are liberally biased as well in reaching the same conclusions.

3. There appears to be no obvious agenda cited by the critics except the sweeping generalization of selecting only statements favorable to Democrats and not favorable to Republicans.

IN WISCONSIN, however, using the above three points, there’s a very compelling situation which makes a good case for Republican (or right-wing) selection bias: .

1. A limited number of writers (they could be biased—but again, there’s no evidence they are, but it seems it would be less possible where there are more than just a few writers, as at PolitiFact (PF) National).  As to the question "who checks the fact-checkers" PolitiFact Wisconsin Senior Editor Greg Borowski could only say "all of our sources are listed and linked.  So check away."  But is having sources listed sufficient?

2. No one else fact-checking same claims because they are local to Wisconsin. .

3. An obvious agenda (the recall election) reflected by a Pants on Fire on the Democrat contender for governor on the eve of the election, with no claims checked on the Republican, and a few days before, particularly June 1, claims reported rated much more positively for Republicans.

4. And I’ve already noted that Republican-leaning news organizations in the PolitiFact domain tend to have truth indexes which favor the Republicans more. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which sponsors PolitiFact Wisconsin, is a somewhat mixed publication in its endorsements: it endorsed Walker, but also endorsed Obama in 2008 and did not endorse either Bush or Kerry in 2004.

5. Individual Truth Index trends: Prior to the 3 month period before the June 5 Recall, Scott Walker’s Truth Index was a negative 43, while in that three month period it improved modestly to a negative 21. Tom Barrett’s Truth Index up until that three month period was a negative 9. In the three months prior to the Recall, it plummeted to a negative 62. Mind you, this was for only eight fact-checks.

On June 1, a few days before the recall, PF Wisconsin writers labored to produce five rulings, three on incumbent and winner Scott Walker and two on Tom Barrett. Walker’s overall Truth Index for these three rulings was a positive, slightly better than Half True 17, with one Mostly True ruling, while Barret’s two, a Half True and a False, gave him on average a “Mostly False” negative 50, and 67 point variance with Walker on the Truth Index. As noted, the writers were done with Walker and the Republicans at this point: two days before the recall they awarded (loser) Tom Barrett a False and then topped it off on the eve of the election by giving him a Pants on Fire.

Click to enlarge:  Note HUGE gap-up with Republicans on top just prior to election, then reversing after.

In the two weeks following the recall (see graph above), there was only one Democrat fact-checked for a Mostly True while there were three Republican fact-checks of Half True, Mostly False and False. In other words, once the election was done, the “truthiness” being rated appeared to swing the other way. As can be seen in the weekly tracking of the Truth Index at PF Wisconsin for the month before up until the month after the recall election, the Republicans swayed back to Mostly False, while the Democrats suddenly improved as more “truthier” than the Republicans. There were no Pants on Fire except for on the eve of the election for the candidate the paper might have preferred to lose.

Early in 2012 I took a good look at the PolitiFact writers in terms of the Truth Index, with special emphasis on PolitiFacts Virginia and Wisconsin, since they seemed to be the only two states where the Truth Index favored the Republicans. Here’s a special graphic I did with respect to the Virginia and Wisconsin writers: the most Republican favorable was Tom Kertscher, and his Truth Index was much the same for 2012 through to the two weeks following the recall. All Truth Indexes were negative: for 42 rulings done by Kertscher, he scored a negative 55 for Democrats (19 rulings) and negative 30 for Republicans (22 rulings). Dave Umhoefer who up until 2012 was fairly even, went to negative 47 for the Democrats and compared with only a negative 6 for the Republicans with 32 rulings evenly divided. James Nelson was almost exactly even on the Truth Index, although he delivered the Barrett Pants on Fire ruling on recall eve. 

Click to enlarge:  For all rulings thru 2011, PF Wisconsin was one of few states who (slightly) favored Republicans.

If you want to talk about party-related selection bias, this should serve as a case study. I hear complaints about it from a very general purview, but this is not general. This is where there's a specific case of  fact-checking as “bias” where it appears that PolitiFact writers deliberately steered readership to a less truthful appearance of the Democratic contenders at the appropriate moment (just prior to the election). Writers who worked for a newspaper which endorsed the Republican winner, twice.

That's why even after the Journal Sentinel has twice endorsed Walker for governor and belittled the recall sought by nearly a million Wisconsinites, right-wing radio still vilifies the newspaper for some sort of imaginary liberal bias.

Up until the recall election, there were several easily disputable fact-checks of Democrats with negative rulings, which qualify for my Grading PF Liberal Style series. I’ve already posted one, and will soon post another. It’s also come to my attention that PolitiFact has distanced itself from those who have pronounced Wisconsin governor Scott Walker the “lyingest” governor in terms of its rulings. But for those governors who have had had 40 rulings or more, Walker has the lowest Truth Index. That was, up until around the recall election. .