Prophecy Fulfilled...Ha ha!

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.

PolitiFact 2013 Lie of the Year?

As the end of the year approaches, I've started thinking about PolitiFact's 2013 Lie of the Year. Are they even going to do it again this year? Was it Bill Adair's "thing" and not Angie Drobnic-Holan's? Well, if they do, it seems to me there's one very, very strong candidate. That's Obama's repeated statement that under Obamacare, "if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it"....conveniently changed to... "you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed." Making it Pants on Fire.

Let's look at the history of how PolitiFact rated the "if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it" statement from Obama:

During Obama's campaign in 2008, he was actually given a True: but at that time, his vision of that which came to be known as Obamacare was much different than what it turned out to be. Things were a bit different at the fledgling PolitiFact as well, as this True ruling was a brief 267 words. The important paragraph which shows how things had changed was this one:

Obama has said he would like his plan to be universal, in that everyone has health care coverage. But currently it includes a mandate only for children. Obama has said that he did not include a mandate for adults so as not to penalize people with modest incomes.

This was a far cry from what it developed into after he was elected president.  "The mandate for adults" was practically the heart of the healthcare proposal which survived to the law itself, meaning that, at the time,"keeping your healthcare plan" was more likely than not. 

In 2009, before the ACA was even passed, and oops, Obama said it again. But now there was a mandate for adults  This was when there was a lot of debate in congress over adding a "public option", a sort of Medicare for those under age 65, and the details had still not been finalized.  This time the Truth-o-Meter throttled down half way on Obama:

Until the legislation gets closer to a final stage, it's difficult to say how many employers will likely opt to change coverage. But clearly some change is coming. It's not realistic for Obama to make blanket statements that "you" will be able to "keep your health care plan." It seems like rhetoric intended to soothe people that health care reform will not be overly disruptive. But one of the points of reform is to change the way health care works right now. So we rate Obama's statement Half True.

Fast forwarding to 2013, as the reality of Obamacare rolled out, he was prudently advised he had better "tweak" it and put some caveats on it...like, if your insurance has the coverages the ACA requires, you can keep it.  If your insurance company won't upgrade it, then you might get cancelled...or your rates adjusted accordingly. Obama chose to back peddle, however: "What we said was, you can keep (your plan) if it hasn't changed since the law passed."

So it went from let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt (True), to we don't have enough information (Half True) to "oh no you don't!" (Pants on Fire).

The qualifiers having made it a Pants on Fire lie, and with PolitiFact in a special report including a compilation of 37 recorded occasions where Obama said it without the qualifier, what we now have is a pretty humongous lie. Along with the start-up failures of the healthcare.gov website we have quite a Lie of the Year combustible combination.

Last year, a Republican got the honor, and it was for something that was capturing the public's attention at the height of the presidential campaign. But this year, the Democrats are over due, and it might be okay to go back to the subject of healthcare, since that's dominated the Lie of the Year position since PolitiFact created the award. 

 

The announcement is right around the corner, and the timing could not be better. So it's my prediction. We'll see in a few weeks.

2013: First Half "Overlapping Fact-Checks"

Of the 939 fact-checks published between (or among?) PolitiFact, the Washington Post FactChecker and Factcheck.Org in the first six months of 2013, there were 21 instances where two or more of the three fact-checkers did the same fact-check.  There were also cases where it was the same fact-check, but the statement being checked was made by different persons or organizations.  Sometimes a statement would be repeated (a "talking point") so it may have been fact-checked again at a later date (by the same fact-checker, which often occurs in the case of PolitiFact), which occasionally would change the rating.

 

At the end of 2012, with the Sandy Hook tragedy shortly before Christmas, guns and gun control suddenly became the hot topic politically, and the fact-checkers followed as 2013 began.  The most frequently overlapping topic concerned guns, followed by healthcare and the federal budget.  And as one might expect, significant nationally broadcast speeches, such as Obama's State of the Union address, were attractive fact-checking fodder.

 

Three statements had all three fact-checkers, PolitiFact, the Washington Post FactChecker, and FactCheck.Org, making a judgment.  One of them, by Barack Obama, had a differing outcome (the fact-checkers appear to be in disagreement), which I may be taking a better look at in another post.  In fact, in certain respects this was not a "triple" as I will explain.  The other two were by the same person, Michele Bachmann, who seems to be popular with the fact-checkers as far as what they believe are outlandish statements, and they were not disappointed.

 

The following are a selection of nine of those 21 instances, including the two three-peaters from Bachmann as well as those having some conflicts with ratings (my comments in italics).

Statement	"Other Fact-checker"	PolitiFact
Barack Obama: (SOTU on 2/13): "The U.S. has created half million manufacturing jobs in three years."	WaPo Factchecker: (in June when Obama repeated it)  Two Pinnochios:  "It's time to retire this talking point." Factcheck.Org: "The president was correct...but that's not the whole story."	True:  "...he has described the numbers carefully." This was by far the most contro- versial of PolitiFact's rulings, as it was technically correct but according to the other two fact- checkers, lacked context.
Barack Obama: (repeated) "40% of all guns purchased/sold do not require a background check." Repeated by Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Tom Barrett (D), and David Cicilline (D).	The WaPo started with an unrated "Verdict Pending" followed by Two Pinnochios a day later, then two months later Three Pinnochios. Factcheck.Org deemed this one an inconclusive "uncertain."	Half True:  Ted Cruz (R), Tom Barrett (D) and David Cicilline (D) all received the same rating. PolitiFact did not rate Obama on this statement.
Michele Bachmann: (3/19)  "70 percent of the food stamp budget goes to bureaucrats."	WaPo Factchecker:  Four Pinnochios. “There really aren't enough Pinnochios for such a misleading use of statistics." Factcheck.Org:  "...a grossly inaccurate claim."	Pants on Fire:  "That is ridiculously off base."
Michele Bachmann: (5/20):  The IRS is going to be "in charge of" a "huge national database" on healthcare with Americans' personal secrets.	“WaPo Factchecker:  Four Pinnochios.  "There is no evidence to support this assertion, and she is simply scaring people." Factcheck.Org:  "...falsely claimed..."	Pants on Fire: "She has mischaracterized the intent and limitations of the hub.  It's not a database."
Barack Obama: (SOTU on 2/13) The Affordable Care Act is "helping to slow the growth of healthcare costs."	Factcheck.Org:  "It may be helping, but the slower growth of healthcare spending began before the law was enacted."	Half True: "Obama is taking credit for more than he can prove."
Ron Johnson (R) stated that Obamacare has "$1 Trillion in hidden middle class taxes" which was denied as "untrue" at the same time by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D)  on ABC's "This Week"  3/10.	WaPo Factchecker:  Two Pinnochios for both: "Both lawmakers found themselves either a modifier too long or short." Factcheck.Org: "Wasserman- Schultz is wrong...(but) Johnson exaggerates."	PolitiFact did not fact-check either statement.
Barack Obama:  (SOTU on 2/13/)  The U.S. has doubled "the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas."	Factcheck.Org: "The (president's claim)...isn't remotely close to being true right now."	False:  "The statement was misleading and more importantly untrue."
Barack Obama:  (4/17) The NRA "used to support background checks."	WaPo Factchecker:  NO RATING.  "At the same time the NRA worked hard to defeat the proposals advanced by...other Democrats."	True:  "The NRA has acknowledged that it has since changed its position to opposition."  This was also a conflict in ratings as WaPo's "no rating" is much different than True regardless that it is "not" a rating.
Tom Coburn: (5/9 on MSNBC).  "After the national park gun ban was lifted, violent crime fell by 85 percent."	WaPo Factchecker: Three Pinnochios.  "...there is no evidence that crime has declined because guns have been permitted."	False:  "....far from clear."



2013: First Six Months' Fact-checking for the Big Three

PolitiFact has definitely "downsized" in the U.S. even with its recent international presence in Australia.  At least for the time being.

 

Since 2011, I've generally expected 475 to 500 rulings from PolitiFact for each quarter.  When 360 were produced for the first quarter of 2013, I attributed that to the writers taking a break after the 2012 elections.  But the second quarter was pretty much a mirror of the first, going from 361 to an almost equal number of 363 rulings.   The dropping of PolitiFact Tennessee and no rulings from PolitiFact New Hampshire would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically PolitiFact has cut back 20 to 25 percent.

 

With fewer rulings to record, I thought I might try something different:  back in 2010 I took a look at FactCheck.Org in and of itself.  I've compared rulings on the same statements many times, and on an individual basis, I've looked at various politicos in terms of Politifact, Factcheck.Org (FCO) and the Washington Post FactChecker.

 

This time I decided to record all three of the most prominent political fact-checkers (PolitiFact, WaPo FactChecker and FactCheck.Org) for the first six months of 2013.  I also tried to make a comparison in terms of the Truth Index.  Between PolitiFact's Truth-o-Meter categories and the Gepetto Checkmark to Four Pinnochios (a "whopper") used at the Washington Post, it wasn't too difficult there.    Factcheck.Org (FCO), however, does not rate fact-checks  with Truth-o-Meters or Pinnochios like the other two.

 

Just like it did when I reviewed it in 2010, I found that FCO generally did not fact-check "truthful" statements, as the great majority of its findings are negative: either misleading or false (It appears the Washington Post FactChecker leans that way as well, although not nearly as much).   It was a very subjective exercise for me to attempt to "rate" them as well, so the "Truth Index" I obtained, in my opinion, should not be construed as entirely accurate.

 

For the most part I based my FCO "ruling" on the same criteria as PolitiFact.  "Misleading" statements which contained an element of truth "but ignore[d] facts which would give a different impression" were categorized as "Mostly False" while statements which were "inaccurate," or incorrect (or when the FCO article called the statement a "false claim," which occurred fairly often) were categorized as False.    There were no "Pants on Fire" or "Whoppers" for FCO.

 

The results I obtained can be shown in the chart below.

The two "smaller" fact-checkers tend to concentrate on facts likely false based on the "Truth Index."

Even with PolitiFact's downsizing, it is still the dominant fact-checker of the "Big Three" with over 3/4 of all rulings for the first six months of 2013.    As noted, it checks a lot more statements which, as can be seen are (1) "True" and, due to its state operations, (2) statements by people with no political affiliation.

PolitiFact had a 57 percent higher overall Truth Index than the Washington Post FactChecker, and it was 82 percent higher than Factcheck.Org.

Sidebar: Oh The Strawmanity!

In the course of my YouTube experience, I ran across a lot of people who used logical fallacies, particularly in the debates concerning religion.  Since my conservative counterpart focuses on them in his fact-check project, blog, and in commentary on Facebook, I also realized that this may have been the same place where he honed his skill on spotting/using them, besides that which he received in his education.

 

A straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation of the opponents' position.  The trouble with straw man is they are often thrown around like so many straws.  They are a logical-fallacy way of saying in your opinion the opponent is lying.   Some people will use them if they don't have anything else to argue with, like an accusation that bears a slight relation to the claim, so it's often difficult to distinguish whether it's really a straw man.  In other words, like everything else, logic can be abused.

 

My main defense (more than once) of PolitiFact's choice of the 2012 Lie of the Year--Mitt Romney's attack ad in the electoral-college crucial state of Ohio where there were several Chrysler plants, that its Jeep division was going to build cars in China--was its cruel inference that those Ohio plants would close.  If I had written that defense today, I would have stated it differently:  Romney's statement (and the ad) were straw men.  He misrepresented the position of Fiat-Chrysler and he misrepresented what Obama did at the time.

In a statement from Fiat-Chrysler management, it refuted that very misrepresentation.  In Obama's case, that was pretty much left to the fact-checkers.

But that is not really the point of this post.  The point is as I wrote it in the way I did, my counterpart attacked me by saying my arguments were straw men--as he stated, "an impressive array."  In other words, he was defending Romney's straw man by claiming those who said it was not true were using a straw man (not just PolitiFact, but Factcheck.Org and the Washington Post). He was doing the very thing that I had seen done in YouTube and Facebook commentary:  when all else fails, bring out the straw man.  Now I understand.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: No "Set" for Navratilova

But another "point" perhaps!

Martina Navratilova's recent statement (published May 7) rated by PolitiFact as a Half True resulted in a big brouhaha review from MSNBC'S popular pundit and gay-rights promoter, Rachel Maddow. Navratilova stated on the TV show "Face the Nation" that "in 29 states in this country, you can still get fired for not just being gay but if your employer thinks that you`re gay, you could still get fired.”

On the face of it, it is true that 29 states do not ban discrimination against gays. But PolitiFact's ruling took into account that in those 29 states there existed similar protections for some employees by means of federal and local laws as well as private company policies.

I had some problems, however, with how PolitiFact came to concluding this Half True...I would want to ask writer Louis Jacobson a couple questions: Did he ask Navratilova or any representative of Navratilova how she framed it? Could it be that she was not aware of such exceptions? It was not indicated in the sources. Did he "count" in terms of those who were in the "exception" category, approximating what percentage of people would be covered in those states not having such protections? It could have been estimated, but it would have taken some time. For example, there's Virginia, which has a high percentage of people working for the government but as a state does not prohibit such discrimination. But in other states, even with other protections, the percent of those having them might be very small--so small that it would not be that relevant.

 

I was a bit disappointed in how Rachel Maddow did the segment on how PolitiFact handled the ruling. Her very curtailed explanation of the exceptions was as follows:

They fact checked a statement about state law, found it to be true, decided it didn’t seem seemly or whatever to actually just call it true, then they searched other unrelated information about how there are other kind of things, besides states, like some companies, they don’t want to discriminate, and doesn’t that count for something?

I vehemently disagree with Maddow. It IS related, and they're actually the same types of laws (which she conveniently left out), not just "some companies" that "don't want to discriminate." It was a four- point bullet list (which some like to call "concrete examples").

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post describes Maddow's approach to fact-checking as "strict constructionist" which means "don't look at the context." Well, to take a term from tennis (used in another way), I'd love, LOVE to see what Maddow would do if PolitiFact did the same with, say, the 2012 PolitiFact Lie of the Year from Mitt Romney about Chrysler moving  vehicle production to China. Perhaps then she'd understand why it is important.

 

Wemple noted that it was not Navratilova's intent to mislead. But the Half True is not a ruling given for misleading statements; it is for those "missing important information." This is where I diverge further however, because the statement on its face was fully accurate, not partially, the criteria for a Half True. As it was fully accurate, but needed the additional information for the other ways in which discrimination was banned, it really qualifies for the Mostly True.

 

Because it would be difficult to account for the number of those who would benefit from those other laws banning discrimination, and because context was not verified by speaking with her, it would have been entirely acceptable to give Navratilova a Mostly True instead of Half True. The exceptions put a large shadow on a True ruling, and PolitiFact was correct in not awarding it. Half True, however, may have been too severe.

Truth Index+: Buh-Bye, Bachmann

What can I say.

Michele Bachmann was someone I termed a statistical "outlier" when it came to the PolitiFact Truth Index+, because she was so far off everyone else in terms of it, as well as in terms of its category Pants on Fire. When she announced she would not run for her congressional seat in 2014, PolitiFact "honored" her by describing the reasons for such a feat:

She had a remarkable streak: Her first 13 ratings were False or Pants on Fire.

Bachmann went on to compete in the 2012 Republican primary for president. She earned her first True rating for a statement she made during a 2011 debate that then-Sen. Obama "refused to raise the debt ceiling because he said President Bush had failed in leadership."

When a question was raised about her veracity, Bachmann cited our work during one of the many Republican presidential debates. "After the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true," she said at a debate in Sioux City, Iowa, on Dec. 15, 2011.

Alas, she was totally wrong. In fact, the week before we had rated her statement that Mitt Romney instituted "socialized medicine" in Massachusetts as Pants on Fire.

Bachmann has been extensively covered on this blog--in fact, my very last post--and has been subjected to the Politi-Score, that is, taking into account all the fact-checks done on her by every source. In her case, she had four (4) sources because of the Minnesota Public Radio Fact-Checker in her home state. And she required more work than the others I've measured using the Politi-Score, as I ended up with a 5-part series when I covered her in August of 2011. It is still worth checking out, as it goes over many of the statements she made which were checked multiple times: (at that time) of the 50 statements from the 4 fact-checkers, a third of them were duplicated, and two statements were checked by all four fact-checkers (and for the most part rated quite consistently, which says something about the integrity of the fact-checkers' processes).

 

61% of Bachmann's statements
were rated False, of which
42% were Pants on Fire

Her Truth Index+ alone, however, should be reviewed in proper context. PolitiFact provided her last ratings by percentage for 59 rulings (see chart at right), but that was all (the same they would do for anyone else). Here is how she looks (below) when you calculate Bachmann's Truth Index+ and compare it to the overall Truth Index+ (through 3/31/2013), as well as that for Republicans overall, for Democrats overall, and compared to her fellow Republicans in Congress, and as an added individual comparison, to the next best female Democrat in congress who probably gets closest to her in terms of making those occasional outrageous statements, Nancy Pelosi, although she's only been subjected to the Truth-o-Meter 22 times, I'm assuming because she relinquished her Speaker of the House position following the Republican mid-term election rout in early 2011(and didn't attempt a run for president as Bachmann did).

 

As can be seen, the Truth Index+ for all the other measures goes from 84% higher for the Democrats overall down to 54% higher for her fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives. I'd also venture to say that for those who've had 50 or more rulings, which puts her in a very special Truth Index+ category especially for females, she probably ranks dead last as far as the Truth Index+ (males AND females).  And the more rulings, the more tell-tale "for truthiness" is the Truth Index+.

 

Today, PolitiFact published an article re-iterating its "principles" with regard to doing rulings. Bill Adair, PolitiFact's creator and outgoing manager, stated under the heading "Choosing Claims to Check" that "we select the most newsworthy and significant ones" and in a bulleted list of "questions they ask themselves" in selecting a statement asked "Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?" And Bachmann certainly met that criteria in many of her statements.  

 

In some ways, hard-line conservativism and Tea Party associations made her a colorful character.  But I can't really say she will be missed. Well, we still have 19 months to go, and anything can happen...so I'll keep my mouth shut.