Sidebar: Keeping On Keep On Talking

Since my last Lil White Lies “critique of the critique” of the Mitt Romney campaign ad where a quote was lifted out of context by Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, which was Obama quoting something said by the McCain campaign (“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”), other analyses have surfaced which permit a more thorough examination of this Pants on Fire ruling by PolitiFact.

FactCheck.Org received an unusually large amount of e-mail on this which it published in its weekly FactCheck Mailbag, for two weeks running. Most writers-in viewed this as outright misrepresentation by Romney, although FactCheck continued to maintain a “let the readers decide” stance. One letter, from a Matt Shepardson of Romeoville, Illinois, was particularly expounding:

What makes this ad deceptive isn’t the Romney people misleading people as to WHEN this quote was made, though the “when” could add to the overall level of deception in the end. The issue with the ad is that it appears that it is Obama who is making the assertion, “If we talk about the economy, we lose.” Obama didn’t make that statement in 2008, and he didn’t make that statement since. Obama was quoting the McCain campaign when he said this. Quoting someone else, and having the fact that someone else is being quoted be omitted, is by the very definition deception. ...

Jackson references the fact that the Romney campaign released a press release where they admitted Obama was repeating the McCain campaign’s comments, and I credit him for at least mentioning this, but the press release in no way excuses what is seen on the TV ad (unless, perhaps, they were to make sure that everyone who saw the ad was also somehow exposed to the press release). Presenting the statement regarding the economy AS OBAMA’S is the issue, and the issue is that it’s a deceptive presentation.

When an independent fact-checking organization leaves such a straight-forward case “to opinion,” it gives permission to those who would obfuscate the truth to do so. Spin is one thing, and it has already made the public cynical, but making assertions with no basis in fact must be called what it is when it happens. If we are ever to restore the faith in our politicians and political process, ads like this must be called out for what they are. And what they “are” are lies.

FactCheck published a response to this (and the other letters of a similar vein) as follows:

We clearly failed to convince these and several other readers of our main point. In our judgment, the ad’s claim that the new health care law is “killing jobs” is far more consequential than the out-of-context editing of Obama’s words. The truth is that independent experts predict only a “small” or “minimal” impact on employment, which is a major concern of voters at a time when unemployment is so high.

Regarding the out-of-context editing, we noted the fact that Obama’s words were shown out of context and gave the full quote from 2008. We said: “It is possible that a viewer might be misled into thinking that Obama said this about his own campaign in 2011, since the quote comes 23 seconds after a graphic cites Obama’s comments as being uttered in 2008.”

But we left it to viewers to decide whether or not to agree with the Obama campaign’s harsh characterization of the video editing as “dishonest” or “deceitful.” Our view is that such pejorative terms should be avoided without clear evidence of malicious intent. In this case the Romney campaign’s stated intent was not to deceive, but to make a case that Obama now faces an even worse economy than John McCain did in 2008. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not to accept that. And we’ll continue to be cautious about using such emotionally loaded terms as “dishonest” or “deceitful.”

In the meantime, a New York Times article addressed the same quote, and an interviewed “top operative” for Team Romney stated that “everybody does it” and that these ads are merely “manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”  It should be noted the New York Times referenced the PolitiFact ruling, followed by: (emphasis added)

Politi-Score: Citizen Cain

Before we know the final outcome of the issues Herman Cain has been experiencing lately, and he is still a leading candidate, this may now be a good time to take a look at his Politi-Score.

Maybe there isn't very much to what
Herman Cain says he can deliver.

When candidate Bill Clinton experienced something somewhat similar back in 1992, he overcame it and went on to become president for two terms; unless things get far worse, Herman Cain can do the same. Although listening to some of the (Republican) pundits, it doesn’t look like he’ll be their nominee. While I hear people like Ann Coulter say that Democrats fear a Conservative Black more than anything, I haven’t seen any indication. If he was nominated, I think it would be great to see him run against Obama—it would really mark the progress of our country.

But to get back to Cain’s Politi-Score: It’s at the bottom of the barrel. It’s the lowest of all the current Republican candidates…even lower than perennial flame thrower Michele Bachmann. At the time I computed the Truth Index for the first 9 months of 2011, he was next to the bottom for all those with 10 PF rulings or more, only worsted by sometimes candidate Donald Trump, who got his pants set on fire with birther remarks until Obama released his long-form certificate earlier this year.

While some argue that FactCheck.Org has higher standards and perhaps less biased reporting than PolitiFact (PF), it recently published quite a derogatory article in which it basically fact-checked the course of Cain’s statements in regard to the sexual harassment accusations he has been facing. Those have not been included in my Politi-Score computations, of course. The article was entitled “Cain’s Pattern of Evasion and Misdirection -- The GOP candidate contradicts himself on abortion, 9-9-9 and now on allegations of sexual harassment.” Here are some choice excerpts:

Politico reported that two women accused him of inappropriate behavior while he served as head of the National Restaurant Association and that both women received financial payments from the trade group. Cain has denied the allegations. At first, Cain also denied that either woman received a settlement. But later the same day, he acknowledged that in at least one case “there was some sort of settlement or termination” worth “maybe three months’ salary.” The next day Cain said it was “in the vicinity of three to six months.” The New York Times reports it was a year’s salary….

In addition to this pattern of evasion and misdirection, Cain also has a proven ability to spread outrageously false information — such as accusing Planned Parenthood of “genocide” and concentrating abortion clinics in black neighborhoods…

Herman Cain… revels in being an unconventional candidate. His campaign is perhaps best exemplified by a viral Web ad of his cigarette-smoking chief of staff declaring that “America has never seen another candidate like Herman Cain,” and then taking a long drag on a cigarette and blowing smoke….

But as he rises in the polls, Cain has come under attack from rivals and has found himself being held to the same standards as conventional top-tier candidates. He’s finding out that even unconventional candidates cannot blow smoke and get away with it.

Spread outrageously false information….Blow smoke and get away with it? I think if I heard that coming from PF’s Lou Jacobson, my conservative counterpart would be having a cow with what he would call “editorializing versus fact-checking.”

Cain had 34 statements reviewed: 22 by PolitiFact, 6 by the Washington Post Fact Checker and 6 by FactCheck.Org. Here’s how he looked overall and with each checker using the PF Truth Index app format:

Applying the Truth Index to The Fact Checker

Glenn Kessler’s The Fact Checker in the Washington Post (WaPo) has some marked similarities to PolitiFact’s Truth-o-Meter, and its rankings of “truthiness” can be associated as follows: 

• WaPo Gepetto Checkmark: True = PolitiFact True: The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
• WaPo ONE Pinnochio: Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.  =  PolitiFact Mostly True: The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. 

• WaPo Withholding Judgment/Verdict Pending or True but False = PolitiFact Half True: The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. 

• WaPo TWO Pinocchios: Significant omissions and/or exaggerations: Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily =  PolitiFact Mostly False: The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. 

• WaPo THREE Pinocchios: Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions =  PolitiFact False: The statement is not accurate.

• WaPo FOUR Pinnochios: Whoppers!  =  PolitiFact Pants on Fire: Not just inaccurate, but makes a ridiculous claim.

The stickler for me in making these “equivalencies” was WaPo’s Withholding Judgment/Verdict Pending or True but False category. PolitiFact really has no such thing (maybe it should?). But it needed to count for something, and because PolitiFact, in its Truth Index, assigns a zero score to Half True, this seemed like the right place for it to be. Because it’s neither negative nor positive—therefore it’s a zero.

So, like PolitiFact, can I take the Fact Checker’s rankings and quantify them likewise into a WaPo Truth Index? You betcha! Although we have far fewer rulings at the Fact Checker that have only been available since March of this year. There’s also rulings where the Fact Checker and PolitiFact have overlapped (evaluated the same statements), which will be covered later.  Here's the Truth Index applied to the approximately 100 Fact Checker rulings, compared to PolitiFact for the first half of 2011, for Democrats and Republicans: