Well, I guess they did it, as I predicted about a month ago. I watched Angie Drobnic-Holan talk about it on Jake Tapper's Show on CNN (above pic is a snippet). Now, I must say, if she's going to say previous rulings on Obama saying the same thing should "both be Pants on Fire" I suppose she could go back and change the previous Half True to Pants on Fire so my conservative counterpart doesn't have a cow? She explained it as a progression from an inconclusive to a verifiable, just as I did in my post.
Anyway, this year it seemed pretty obvious and now I kind of see how they pick them: notoriety associated with the claim seems to hold more importance than prevalence of fact-checking the claim; that is, even if it's repeated quite a bit (as well as fact-checked), if there's a lot of publicity surrounding it, or I suppose you might call it, getting a lot of Lexis-Nexis results may matter more.
But Obama's had a bad year in 2013, and perhaps PolitiFact wanted to give it some credence.
No comments:
Post a Comment