Grading ZFC: Bachmann is Full of Care, and BS

In reviewing this meta-factcheck of PolitiFact (PF) by Zebra Fact-Check (ZFC), I carefully listened to the entire 17 minutes of Michele Bachmann's speech at the annual CPAC on YouTube. I must have heard the word "care" between 40 and 60 times in the course of the speech, along with something to the effect of "our movement loves people." It was a pure--in terms of logical fallacies-- "appeal to emotion."

PolitiFact fact-checked the following part of her speech:

We wondered if it was accurate for Bachmann to say that "scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" were it not for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators." So we checked with a variety of Alzheimer’s researchers and policy experts. (Bachmann’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.)

(I guess if you're excluded from the CPAC Movement of Love you don't deserve a response!)

My conservative counterpart claimed that in analyzing Bachmann's statement, PolitiFact "commit(ted) a core blunder in its fact check analysis." He added that it "fail[ed] to pay basic attention to Bachmann’s statement and severely misrepresent[ed] it in the fact check."

Oh my, do we like to use exaggerative words, like "core blunder" and "severely" misrepresent. So....was that really what it was, or was it something less?

 

Something should be added as far as the context, that ZFC ignores or neglects to mention. Bachmann started out with describing how Jonas Salk invented his Polio vaccine and gave it to Eisenhower in the 1950's which was distributed to the general population. She used it to segue into how a cure could be found in the same way for Alzeimer's. But the two diseases are vastly different: one is a virus, and one is a degenerative, progressive brain disease of unknown origins. It's  comparing apples to oranges. On top of that, if a cure for Alzeimer's is found, does she think whoever discovers it is going to give it so easily to the "people" especially in this day and age of our political parties (and I'm not going to say it's just the Republicans) cow-towing to the lobbyists of major corporations? I'd like to see just how far all that "love and care" is going to go to do it.

But that is besides the point. Was Bachmann's statement misrepresented by PolitiFact in a way so it could ultimately set her pants on fire? A friend of mine who calls himself "Deconverted Man" on YouTube--his real name is Daniel--just finished up on some courses on logical fallacies in completing his degree. He also responds to videos on YouTube with his own where he analyzes, explains, and puts on a "counter" those logical fallacies he finds (and he seems to find a lot). He was gracious enough to review PolitiFact's fact-check as well as what ZFC had to say.

Bachmann has an appeal to emotion, "care" word is key to note - and offers no citing for what scientists say that the cure would be or could be reached if only we paid enough for it - who's saying this, where, when? Give examples, cite your sources.

Bachmann seems to suggest there will or could be a cure, if only funds were there , and offers nothing to support this as a conclusion.

Politifact made a weaker argument then it could have if they wanted to argue this point. Is it good to put more funding into this - sure - funding for all cures is a good thing -or is Bachmann guilty of not giving the public (or whoever she is addressing) the best argument she could - yes.

Is it a strawman - well - they attacked a point which was weaker than the points they COULD have attacked - however a strawman occurs when you build an augment that is not in fact what your opponent said - at all - here Bachmann is attacked with words she did use - but it is a weaker attack then it could have been.

This is not a strawman per se - it simply is not a strong argument, it is a strawman if they were to construct an argument that she never made - and I simply do not see that happening here.

So yes, we could say PolitiFact used a "weaker" argument; but it was an "argument" nonetheless, and ZFC turned it into something it wasn't. "Straw man" must be the hard to detect, easy to give answer when you can't think of anything else to allege.

 

In other words, Bachmann really didn't support her statement with any facts or citations, and ZFC admits "she does not follow by giving reasons why that cure will not occur" except by making an invalid comparison (prior) to the Salk vaccine. PolitiFact affirmed her claims about " overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators" weren't true. Bachmann even says a few moments later that "we need big innovation" and "computers can 'data-crunch' to new cures" which are even more logic-challenging in their sweeping generalizations.

 

White, if anything, was looking for excuses for Bachmann. While she could merit a False, taken in context and substance, it called for less. Bachmann looked good as she always does, nicely coiffed in a beautiful suit with a nice set of pearls. She has a good presentation style. But that's where it ends.