Truth Index+: The Top Ten PolitiFact Writers

There are ten PolitiFact (PF) writers who have produced just about half of PolitiFact's rulings, from its beginnings in 2007 up until I ended my compilation on Election Eve, 2012.  Another roughly 160 writers composed the rest of them, many serving multiple functions of writer, researcher and editor.  There were 47 writers who wrote just one to two rulings each.

 

The highest producer by far is Lou Jacobson, whose 676 fact-checks (some done in association with other writers at PolitiFact) make up a bit over 10% of PolitiFact's total output.  Number 2 is Angie Drobnic Holan, now the Editor at PolitiFact Florida, at 571.

 

Below is the Truth Index+  for the Top Ten, with scores for Republican versus Democrat.  The best way to look at these averages in terms of "bias" or "lean" would be the percent variance in the Truth Index+ between party for each writer.  Lou Jacobson, Angie Drobnic Holan, Robert Farley and PF Georgia's Willoughby Mariano have about a 22% variance leaning toward the Democrats, only to be exceeded by Number One C. Eugene Emery of PolitiFact Rhode Island, who has a whopping 38% Democrat lean.   Tom Kertscher at PolitiFact Wisconsin swings 22% in the opposite direction; the remainder go from 3% in favor of the Republicans to around 10% in favor of the Democrats.

 

Click to enlarge:  NA in parentheses = PF National; then number of rulings written.

So, what can we learn from the Truth Index+ for each writer?  I decided to take a closer look at the top four writers and an "outlier" in terms of some of the items I had keyed in:  party, titles, people, subjects.

 

Lou Jacobson, for example, was No. 5 in "lean" variance as noted above, although other than Emery he was in a virtual tie with four others.  But he had a few features in his 676 rulings that stood out:  he is definitely "the economics guy" on the PolitiFact team.   The subject of about 40% of his rulings was a fiscal one: economy, federal budget, stimulus, taxes etc..  This was a far larger percentage than any other writer.  Healthcare was the subject of 25% of his rulings.    In terms of "occupation" his being on PolitiFact National's team meant that about 30% of his rulings were on the president and vice president and the presidential/vice presidential candidates (in 2008 and 2012).

 

A check on names revealed a notable person who seems one of Jacobson's "fact-check favorites"--Michele Bachmann.  He did almost a third (17) of her 54 rulings, and gave her 5 of her 12 Pants on Fire awards, as well as five Falses (in other words, when a claim was found False for Bachmann, Jacobson determined it was Pants on Fire half of the time.)  In comparison, Angie Drobnic Holan only gave Bachmann one Pants on Fire out of five rulings found False.

Lil White Lies: Christmas in August

Consistency of standards seems to be the real subject of a Grading PolitiFact review of a PolitiFact Texas ruling on former Texas state representative Paul Sadler, who stated that the federal debt (nearly) doubled when Bush was president.

The Sublime Bloviations Grading PolitiFact series gave both writer (Sue Owen) and editor (W. Gardner Selby) of this PolitiFact Texas ruling his usual “F” grade, yet agreed (was “okay with”)  the Mostly True ruling. This was a case where the 500-pound Gorilla Christmas Tree was clearly comprehended, and that it was useless to nitpick about the ornaments.

Before reading this and finding that out, however, I was ready to make another Christmas connection of Sublime Bloviations’ Bryan White with the Republican Two Santa Claus theory as put forth by Jude Wanniski, and how very, very well George W. Bush played that game with his tax cuts. If you look at the chart below, Bush initiated two wars and the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit , yet as a percentage of GDP his spending appears relatively flat until the financial meltdown of 2008.

Instead, White belittled the “way” in which the ruling was written, and inserted his own five “concrete examples” of what was wrong with it.

So, let’s take a look at each of his examples, and see if PolitiFact follows any sort of “standards” and if it deviates from them depending on who it is they’re rating.

1) Evidently none of the figures recognize the temporary nature of the debt resulting from the bailout spending in 2009. That bailout spending accounted for very roughly $441 billion as of June 30, 2009.

Right off the bat, there’s been suggestions that bailout repayments may have been recorded differently, while other PolitiFact rulings appear to indicate otherwise. Assuming it to be $600 billion, that’s a little over 10% of Bush’s deficits. Along with the questionable accounting, we’re still at three fourths of that “nearly double.” But the real question is: does PolitiFact take the bailout pay-backs into account in other fact-checks, or do other fact-checkers figure in the bailouts? A lengthy review by FactCheck.Org indicates it does not take the bank bailouts into account (and in this 2010 review as well). PolitiFact rulings about (statements concerning) Bush’s debt by Obama supporters  Rahm Emmanuel and Dick Durbin do not take this into account. A briefly-lived fact-checker sponsored by NBC News called “Meet The Facts” awarded New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez a “Mostly True”  on a "national debt increasing 72% " statement and does not take the bailout paybacks into account.  Onto Number 2 example:

2) Bush gets about $120 billion in ARRA (stimulus) spending credited to his FY2009 account. ARRA spending and bailouts combined may account for nearly $600 billion in supposed debt. The story omits all of this context.

This is basically a repeat of the first point. Factcheck.Org takes into account the stimulus spending and the auto bailout, but does not address the paybacks. Onto Number 3 Example:

3) Following the above, the inauguration date figures probably provide a better estimate of the debt increase than those from the end of the 2001 and 2009 fiscal years: That estimate comes to a 54 percent increase on the gross debt after adjusting for inflation.

Here, PolitiFact (and other fact-checkers) most often use the inauguration date to measure the increase, but they do not account for inflation. In the Rahm Emmanuel fact-check mentioned above:

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said.

In the Dick Durbin fact-check, the end of year 2000 to the end of year 2008 was used, which is almost as good:

Truth Index: PolitiFact 2011 "Very" Preliminary

PolitiFact National and  a few regional PolitiFact (PF) rulings are still trickling in during the last week of 2011.  Right now I'm sitting at a little over 1,900 rulings for the year 2011.  PolitiFact peaked with the gross number of rulings in the second quarter of 2011, hitting over 500, and I thought with New Jersey coming on board that the number would increase.  However, in the third quarter it dropped to 476 rulings, and this quarter, perhaps due to the holidays, it will be around 450 to 455.

Click to enlarge:  Number of Republican rulings has increased as a percentage throughout 2011.

What can be reported preliminarily at this point is that in 2011, Republicans dominated.  The percentage of Republican statements being ruled on increased as the year progressed, most likely due to covering the numerous Republican presidential debates.  This final quarter of 2011, for example, the number of Republican statements being rated for all PF regions including National exceeded Democrats by 70 percent (overall, it's less than 60%).  PolitiFact National brought the percentage up with a two-for-one emphasis on Republicans. Above is how it all looks on a bar chart: the number in parentheses is the total number of rulings for that quarter.  This is subject to additional review for any errors (see below) I may find as I scour it for any dupes and miscategorizations when I do the final charts.  But it's not expected to change greatly.  Below is how PF National looks:  almost 2/3 of their rulings were on Republicans in the fourth quarter.  Today they added two more Republican rulings not included here:  they were both on claims in Gingrich attack ads being done by a Romney super PAC.

Click to enlarge:  The run-up to the Republican primaries brought the PF National/New Hampshire
percentage of Republican rulings to over 66 percent in the 4th quarter of 2011.

In the meantime, I have to note I found a "dupe" on the part of PolitiFact.  I get the impression they have some sort of software for publishing their rulings, like a template where there are drop-downs for the subject, the sources, etc., as well as for "which" PolitiFact.  Because I found one somewhat "local" Ohio ruling by an Ohio writer which somehow ended up in both the PF Ohio....and PF Texas listings?  Oh well, it was just one out of 1,900-plus.  But I found it only because this quarter I have started recording the statement, which is what prompted me to discover it.  So I am wondering if there may be more. 

Josh Mandel is running for office in Ohio.  This "Half True" ruling was counted twice by PF (see link).

Here's where it's in its proper place.  How it ended up in Texas as well, I have NO idea.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Rick Perry's Budget Bliss

PolitiFact (PF) Texas awarded an inconclusive “Half True” for a fairly straightforward statement by Rick Perry  about his financial prowess as Texas Governor: “..we cut a record $15 billion from our budget.”

But you can cut your budget all you want, heck, you can cut it to zero, the problem is, can you meet the budget? That’s the difference, as they say, between walkin’ the walk and talkin’ the talk. And Rick Perry, it appears, was just talkin’ the talk.

In January, Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column:

The only thing that let Gov. Rick Perry get away, temporarily, with claims of a surplus was the fact that Texas enacts budgets only once every two years, and the last budget was put in place before the depth of the economic downturn was clear. Now the next budget must be passed — and Texas may have a $25 billion hole to fill. Now what?

In September, local Texas publications appeared to confirm that Krugman’s prediction was coming true:

A budget shortfall as high as $27 billion is projected as lawmakers work through the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office. There is unity on the amount of its budget shortfall, however. Republicans who argue spending does not need to be maintained or grow from 2010-11 levels argue the shortfall could be around $12 billion to $15 billion. Texas writes budgets biennially, or in two-year terms, so the shortfall affects the 2012-13 state budget.

So even if the Republicans view the shortfall conservatively, the cuts almost match the shortfall.

PF Texas points out that some of the original budget shortfalls were made up by stimulus money, and that the true “cuts” was around $3 Billion. But, as noted, the shortfall seems to be suspicously matching the cut—while the maximum projected is almost double that…which means there was never a cut to begin with.

Then there were budget tricks such as delaying payments so they “appear” not to be part of the current budget, such as “$2.3 billion in payments to school districts.” Which only means, the Texas Budget has to increase by that amount the next time around, unless the payments are delayed again. Eventually, it catches up with you.

So PF Texas judged Perry’s statement quite charitably. He was off by 80% or more with “smoke and mirrors” budget cuts. There’s a lot of documentation out there that PF missed that indicates Perry’s budget claims were incorrect, and getting more incorrect all the time. “False” or “Mostly False” would be a more legitimate ruling.

Postscript:  According to FactCheck.Org, Texas has a "balanced budget amendment,"  and begins with saying that it's true that Texas is "spending more money than [it] takes in."  So keep cutting, Rick.

Postscript to Postscript:  I do have to admit, however, I was wrong on one thing with regard to Republican presidential potential: old rootin' tootin' Rick may now be Texas Toast. 

Sidebar: How scarey is Perry-Care?

Previously I put together this chart comparing the ten healthiest with the ten unhealthiest states, which I think will be not only expanded upon, but referenced many more times, because it clearly shows there's a strong correlation between good health and having healthcare: 

Texas has one of the highest rates of obesity, giving new meaning to everything being bigger in Texas.

Now that it’s been found that Texas is one of the fattest, most diabetic and unhealthiest states in the union (see above), as well as having the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance, PolitiFact found Texas Governor Rick Perry might not even know this (or is denying it) in this Pants on Fire ruling from January:

It's no secret that Texas Gov. Rick Perry thinks states can do some things better than the federal government, including coordinating health care for its poorest residents.

In a Dec. 19 interview with Kathleen McKinley, whose blog appears on the Houston Chronicle's website, Perry said the state has good ideas for delivering care effectively. As an example, he pointed to a proposal that Texas submitted to the federal government with the goal of reducing the number of uninsured residents by "restructuring federal Medicaid funding." Medicaid uses federal and state funding to provide health insurance to low-income Americans.

…We confirmed that Texas had sought permission from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in April 2008 to redirect Medicaid hospital funds into a state pool intended to help some low-income Texans get private insurance. However, in August 2008, during George W. Bush's presidency, an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is part of the federal health agency, sent a letter to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission stating that "a number of areas under this proposal have been identified as problematic" — making it impossible for the federal agency to approve the proposal as written.”

Maybe it should be called “Perry-Care”? Yep, states like Texas sure can do some things better, and economist Paul Krugman is here to explain (and PolitiFact to verify):

From Cowboys to...Cows?

So now that we’ve taken a look at right-wing charges of left-wing bias at PolitiFact Texas, we now travel north to PolitiFact (PF) Wisconsin, where we have an opportunity to take a look at left-wing charges of right-wing bias against PF’s partners at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. And it will be using a similar methodology that was utilized by the critics of PolitiFact Texas: a “comparison” to support the belief that PolitiFact applies different standards in making its rulings, which in this case are allegedly more favorable to Republicans.

The subject writer in this case is Jed Lounsbury of Uppity Wisconsin.org, a website featuring “Progressive News from the Cheddarsphere.” We’re off to the right start already, since the counterpart at PolitiFact Texas was also easily established as a *non*-Progressive. And his very first sentence tells us after our right start where we are headed: “The Journal Sentinel’s PolitiFact is a joke.”

As one of the few keepers of PolitiFact’s rulings database, I immediately run into something that needs to be addressed:

PolitiFact has chosen to pull out the "pants on fire" ruling three times and all three times have been for Democrats. (PolitiFact has never rated a comment their highest designation of "true," but they have twice designated ads as "mostly true"-- and both of those have gone to Republican candidates.) …

…the MJS has not found a single statement or ad by a GOP politician to brand with their nuclear "pants on fire" designation and couldn't find anything by a Democrat to designate as "mostly true" or higher!

Jed may have not known at the time (since it was September) that there were quite a few True rulings made by PolitiFact Wisconsin, from its inception through the end of 2010. The distribution breaks down as follows, along with the Politi-Score: