tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post6741180914826719980..comments2023-08-20T03:37:07.774-07:00Comments on PolitiFact Bias: PolitiFact finds true Rush Limbaugh claim "False"Bryan Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-40279367737337510042015-02-14T04:16:18.082-08:002015-02-14T04:16:18.082-08:00Clearly if someone said none of the wealthiest ame...Clearly if someone said none of the wealthiest americans were black. Pit would be a lie and blacks would be outraged. Saying some are, is clearly a true statement daddtoscarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288517609299416378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-55735360230728545662014-05-18T21:44:51.161-07:002014-05-18T21:44:51.161-07:00With apologies to Jeff and his initial answer, &qu...With apologies to Jeff and his initial answer, "An obviously biased blog criticizing an obviously biased fact checker" is not a specific criticism. Accusing the blog of bias is a generalized charge, the observation that we're criticizing is a generalized observation, and the charge that PolitiFact is obviously biased is likewise a generalized charge. Granted, if JMW believes the Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-65140001130275920112014-05-18T20:37:24.551-07:002014-05-18T20:37:24.551-07:00Thank you for pointing out we're biased, even ...Thank you for pointing out we're biased, even though we already pointed that out on our FAQ page. <br /><br />Any chance you can fill us in on the reason PolitiFact writers are able to define "wealthiest Americans" as the top 1%, but Rush Limbaugh has to use the more strict Forbes top 400 standard? <br /><br />We'd appreciate it if you could do it without "burying the Jeff D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16256347579300904884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-77726978904765676242014-05-18T18:43:56.579-07:002014-05-18T18:43:56.579-07:00An obviously biased blog criticizing an obviously ...An obviously biased blog criticizing an obviously biased fact checker? Just to name one. John Meets Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09095876253000188135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-18287305269099294362014-05-18T17:39:44.457-07:002014-05-18T17:39:44.457-07:00Anonymous wrote: "John Meets World makes goo...Anonymous wrote: "John Meets World makes good points."<br /><br />Yeah? Like what? Name his best point.<br /><br />What's worse than an anonymous blog criticism that contains nothing at all specific?Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-50392785598243629472014-05-18T13:14:52.827-07:002014-05-18T13:14:52.827-07:00John Meets World makes good points. You guys are b...John Meets World makes good points. You guys are burying the realities in comments and subtexts rather than being up front in the articles. You are doing the same thing you're damning others for doing. Quite sad. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-14784225219297026732014-05-16T08:28:27.072-07:002014-05-16T08:28:27.072-07:00Doubtless we could improve by adopting your practi...Doubtless we could improve by adopting <b>your</b> practice: We could instead say that even though we've cited no evidence of any kind we're immediately justified. Toodles.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-5119177584953090092014-05-16T05:36:52.463-07:002014-05-16T05:36:52.463-07:00Like I said, you and and Politifact were made for ...Like I said, you and and Politifact were made for each other :D Both with blind bafoonish hypocrisy, saying that just because they've cited evidence of some kind then they're immediately justified. <br /><br />Bye now ;) John Meets Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09095876253000188135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-7735668146868342482014-05-15T23:21:26.438-07:002014-05-15T23:21:26.438-07:00"John Meets World" heads off the rails:
..."John Meets World" heads off the rails:<br /><br />"So your site is allowed "charitable interpretation", but Politifact fact isn't?"<br /><br />We practice charitable interpretation consistently. PolitiFact does not. If there's a statement PolitiFact made that you think needs our charitable interpretation, simply identify it and we'll try to help you Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-88586964258894810092014-05-15T15:49:25.575-07:002014-05-15T15:49:25.575-07:00So your site is allowed "charitable interpret...So your site is allowed "charitable interpretation", but Politifact fact isn't? <br /><br />I established my point about Limbaugh's statement by reading what he said. I believe it is called "perceiving the world around us". But perhaps you need a source on that, Socrates approximately 400 BC. <br /><br />Rush Limbaugh is a pundit. He is allowed to his opinion, and whatJohn Meets Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09095876253000188135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-81794850493740695042014-05-15T13:53:11.807-07:002014-05-15T13:53:11.807-07:00"But if we're assuming that the "lin..."But if we're assuming that the "line" is the vaguest theme imaginable"<br /><br />We're not doing that. We're taking it as vague and applying charitable interpretation.<br /><br />"the current state of socioeconomic equality between African-Americans and whites, which was the subject of Limbaugh's statement."<br /><br />Where did you establish Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-7695714976185855542014-05-15T13:03:58.303-07:002014-05-15T13:03:58.303-07:00But if we're assuming that the "line"...But if we're assuming that the "line" is the vaguest theme imaginable, then Limbaugh's statement is simply that he recognizes that black people exist. That doesn't signify anything about the current state of socioeconomic equality between African-Americans and whites, which was the subject of Limbaugh's statement. <br /><br />Also, whether we argue about the intent of John Meets Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09095876253000188135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-83277047437995845662014-05-14T11:20:36.882-07:002014-05-14T11:20:36.882-07:00Oh, and thanks for commentiing!
Oh, and thanks for commentiing!<br />Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-14033650181634820642014-05-14T11:19:35.220-07:002014-05-14T11:19:35.220-07:00We'll do what we can to help.
"The artic...We'll do what we can to help.<br /><br />"The article says that only 1.4% of the top 1% of Americans are African Americans. I do not believe this would justify Limbaugh's statement of "some". I find it nominally low. "<br /><br />It *is* nominally low, but it isn't clear how this would contradict Limbaugh's statement.<br /><br />"Personally, I believe the Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-84264935853149827342014-05-14T07:40:12.774-07:002014-05-14T07:40:12.774-07:00Can I have a little clarification? I've been e...Can I have a little clarification? I've been examining this story as part of research on Politifact, and I'm interested in feedback. <br /><br />I agree that using Forbes magazine is an arbitrary way of determine America's wealthiest Americans, but I read The Chronicle article link, and the data seems to contradict Limbaugh's statement. <br /><br />The article says that only 1.4% John Meets Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09095876253000188135noreply@blogger.com