About 1:21 p.m. yesterday, PolitiFact Bias published the same photo of Bill Adair in his office from the Nieman Journalism Lab article as written by Andrew Phelps, and yes, he did just as predicted in my last post (posted 10:32 a.m., or about 3 hours earlier) although patting himself on the back not in the way I had thought (although he left the door open to do so).
PolitiFact Bias’ Bryan White felt the insufficient exchange Phelps included between Amy Hollyfield, Bill Adair and Lou Jacobson was enough evidence to prove the “lack of objectivity” in deciding a Pants on Fire, as “hypothesized” in his “initial research study.” A highly limited conversation, with no other context, on ONE SINGLE ruling, to conclude an institutionalized dynamic liberal bias was afoot.
In terms of “objectivity” the review by Lou Jacobson which suggested a methodical, objective approach to determining the final ruling was totally ignored by White:
• Is the claim literally true?
• Is the claim open to interpretation? Is there another way to read the claim?
• Does the speaker prove the claim to be true?
• Did we check to see how we handled similar claims in the past?
More than that, for all we know, the PolitiFact crew may have other objective point-by-point lists to guide them as to how to classify a ruling—and it could be when the claim does not meet all points, a meeting is called to decide; otherwise, it’s a no-brainer. And it’s more than possible Phelps didn’t get into that detail because it was “too much information” for his article.
That’s why I said in my first post on this that Bill Adair was setting White up. He thought it would be amusing to feed White’s false narrative, and White ate it all up:
Andrew Phelps of the Nieman Journalism Lab recently sat in on PolitiFact's formerly private deliberations and produces much the picture I have come to expect (pun not intended) during my years of increasing skepticism….The fact checkers doubtless assure themselves of their neutrality as nearby two-dimensional cardboard Obamas smile approvingly at their work….All credit to Jeff for spotting the President Obama cardboard figure in Adair's office that turns the statement about staffers' voting history into an absolute howler….But don't get the idea that Adair is biased or anything.
White is also implying that, by saying “Obamas” (plural), all the PolitiFact crew have his image smiling at their work as part of his spin. I’m assuming this one was in Adair’s Washington office. So, does he know if Angie Drobnic-Holan has one down in Miami, or Lou and Amy have one in Tampa?
One of the concluding paragraphs of the Neiman article is very telling:
Unlike The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, who awards Pinocchios for lies, or PolitiFact, which rates claims on a Truth-O-Meter, Jackson’s FactCheck.org doesn’t reduce its findings to a simple measurement. “I think you are telling people we can tell the difference between something that is 45 percent true and 57 percent true — and some negative number,” he said, referring to Pants on Fire. “There isn’t any scientific objective way to measure the degree of mendacity to any particular statement.”
So, White has his answer right there. Maybe the real problem is he knows there’s no scientific, objective way to measure it—that’s why he pretends to demand it. Just as he pretends to demand that PolitiFact find a way to control for selection bias, knowing there’s no way for professional journalists in an environment where the demand is for “newsworthiness” can do it. He even demands they publish their bias as a disclaimer, as if they were begging for the cardboard Obama's approval. He demands the impossible so he can falsely claim failure on the part of PolitiFact.
The only part of my prophecy “fulfilled” was that PolitiFact Bias would make a lot of hay from the cut-out of Obama; as PolitiFact Bias “mines” this article as it says it’s going to, I expect some of my other points will be repeated. More to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment