Today we reveal PolitiFact's second-most popular response to criticism, via example. The example comes from PolitiFact's Mailbag feature, Jan. 29, 2016:
One reader criticized our story, "The presidential scorecards so far," which listed the summaries of our fact-check ratings for the 2016 presidential field, candidate by candidate.And there you have it.
Such a comparison, the reader wrote, "is absolutely meaningless, because the statements selected for Truth-O-Meter ratings for each candidate were neither scientifically nor randomly selected. In previous responses to my emails, Truth-O-Meter personnel have stated that the criteria used for selection of statements is documented and thus is sufficient for journalistic integrity. I have no problem with what statements you select for fact-checking, or the process used in the selection. However, trying to lump all such statements together into a scorecard, and then comparing scorecards for different people, when different statements were rated, is scientifically meaningless, and, in my opinion, advocacy journalism rather than fact-based journalism."
PolitiFact's second-most popular response to criticism involves acknowledging the existence of the criticism and offering no response to it.
Post a Comment
Thanks to commenters who refuse to honor various requests from the blog administrators, all comments are now moderated. Pseudonymous commenters who do not choose distinctive pseudonyms will not be published, period. No "Anonymous." No "Unknown." Etc.