For example, check out this devastating set of criticisms from the "Radio Free Liberal" message board. One member of the board posted a link to our site, saying it would help explain how/why PolitiFact is biased to the left.
Then we get this:
This is an anti-PolitiFact website which means it is biased. Really, you could have done something better than picking the first website appearing on Google. This is almost as funny as the time when you were challenged to backup one of your claims and you posted a link to a white supremacist website and then claimed you didn't know it was a white supremacist website.An anti-PolitiFact website is automatically biased? Doesn't that beg the question? Plus we're indicted for choosing a website name that puts us at the top of search results!
There's no substance at all to this criticism. Is it really helpful to people to explain when they're assuming their conclusion or committing a genetic fallacy? If that helps, here we go: The criticism assumes that criticism of PolitiFact is biased and therefore invalid. How would one justify that assumption?
How about this:
All he had to do is to go to the sponsor of the web blog to get the back story of how they manipulated their own "politifact" story. It's all in the open, Tell a lie and repeat it often... the dummies will follow.I have no idea what this person is trying to say. The link goes to Jeff's cross-post of an article we also have posted at PolitiFact Bias. As far as I can tell, this chap thinks it represents evidence that we are admitting we are making up stuff about PolitiFact. If anybody thinks they see the same thing in that link he does, please drop us a line.
http://bewznewznvewz.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ts_31.html
This next commenter apparently likes the guitarist Steve Morse, and therefore can't be all bad:
And the other guy sounds like a supreme conservative whinybaby. Look at these sites of hisI guess it's a board for liberals to get together and whine about how whiny conservatives are. But let's just assume I'm not just a supreme conservative whinybaby. Let's assume I'm the supreme conservative whinybaby. With that out of the way, can we agree that a criticism that fails to get beyond name-calling amounts to an ad hominem fallacy?
Although, he seems to be a Steve Morse fan. I can get with that.
Come on, Radio Free Liberal. Give us something challenging to work with. Assuming that criticism of PolitiFact is invalid thanks to bias is essentially the same error as assuming PolitiFact is invalid because it is biased.
You can do better, right? We await your counterwhine.