Also this week, PolitiFact Health Check, the PolitiFact partnership with Kaiser Health News, apparently contradicted Sharockman's claim.
If it looks like PolitiFact is fact-checking a prediction, that's because PolitiFact is fact-checking a prediction.
More than one of PolitiFact's pool of four experts apparently saw it exactly that way (bold emphasis added):
But, Adler said, the structure of Trump’s claim — promising what his administration "will" do, rather than commenting on what it has done — leaves open the possibility of taking other steps to keep preexisting condition protections in place.History shows that PolitiFact will not allow mere expert opinion to stand in the way of the hoped-for narrative. When experts offer opinions that do not fit comfortably with PolitiFact's conclusion, PolitiFact ignores them.
That’s true, other experts acknowledged. So far, the White House has postponed a legislative push until after the 2020 election — leaving a vacuum if the courts do wipe out the health law.
Hilariously, PolitiFact's conclusion uses language strongly suggesting an awareness that it is rating a prediction:
What is "policy trajectory" if it is not a projection of what will happen tomorrow based on Trump administration policy today?Our ruling
Trump said his administration will "always protect patients with preexisting conditions."
The White House’s policy trajectory does exactly the opposite.
PolitiFact Health Check is not fact-checking Trump. It is rating a pledged policy position. PolitiFact could potentially address such cases with an expansion of its ratings of executive promises ("Trump-O-Meter" etc.).
But this so-called "fact check" makes Sharockman a liar if it isn't corrected somehow.
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 Pseudonymous commenters who do not choose distinctive pseudonyms will not be published, period.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.