Here at PolitiFact Bias, we've published thousands of words exposing mistakes and bias in PolitiFact's fact-checking.
Former PolitiFact and FactCheck.org fact checker Lucas Graves, now teaching at the University of Wisconsin some years ago wrote a professional paper based on his experiences as a fact checker. Graves described the process of one of his fact-checks, accompanied by encouragement to take the example as typical of the industry.
Here's the abstract:
This article presents a detailed ethnographic account of objective practice among professional fact checkers, reporters who specialize in assessing the truth of political claims. Some critics argue that political debate is inherently value-laden and defies objective fact checking; I offer an alternative view highlighting the practical epistemology revealed in the newswork routines and discourse of working fact checkers. Drawing links between core concepts in the sociology of science and journalism studies, this analysis highlights how in moments of institutional unsettlement, verification relies on factual coherence, rather than straightforward correspondence. To develop this argument, I anatomize a fact check produced as a participant observer with a major national fact-checking organization.
At one point I jokingly sent Graves an example of an extreme PolitiFact train wreck, suggesting it as subject of a logical follow up paper.
Dear Professor Graves,
I humbly submit that this fact check from PolitiFact Wisconsin would serve as the perfect subject for the sequel to your paper Anatomy of a Fact Check: Objective Practice and the Contested Epistemology of Fact Checking.
Though you did not participate in the creation of this fact check, I'm confident you could gain the cooperation of PolitiFact Wisconsin and Madeline Heim for purposes of obtaining the bird's eye lowdown on its development and publication, along with PolitiFact Wisconsin's reluctance to issue a correction.
The truth-twisting begins right away on the deck, as PolitiFact translates Trump's claim into "Trump falsely says Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton wants to double Ohio income taxes."
Is there a difference between saying someone "is trying to" and "wants to"? Of course there is, and context can magnify the difference. In this case, context is critical. Trump offers hardly any, so a fact checker could rightly fault Trump for omitting context. But when Trump is the subject of a PolitiFact fact check the aim more likely than not involves pinning on him a "False" or "Pants on Fire" ruling.
Looking at the context tells us the point was that Democrat candidate Amy Acton's policy plans would dramatically increase state spending in Ohio. Trump's not talking about a literal increase in state income tax, but rather an estimate of how much income taxes would need to increase to cover the raised budget.
Let's follow the
“Amy Acton is trying to double your state income tax,” he said.
Ramawamy’s platform includes eliminating the state income tax, and his campaign and the Ohio Republican Party have repeated the accusation during what has become a contentious race to replace Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who is term-limited. The claim has appeared in pro-Ramaswamy ads, a Ramaswamy campaign-funded website, social media posts and a state GOP press release.
The "ads" link doesn't have the claim PolitiFact says we should find. On the budget, the video narrator simply says "Ohio can't afford liberal Amy Acton," accompanied by the visual:
The "campaign-funded website" URL comes closer to the claim:
But it's not saying Acton wants to double Ohio's income tax. Rather, it's saying Acton's policy prescriptions lead down that path.
The "social media posts" link ends up much the same way:
The last supposed repeat of Trump's claim again comes in terms of proposed programs adding up to a much bigger state budget:
Amy Acton has finally put her cards on the table — and the bill is staggering.
In a recent video posted on X, Acton rolled out a series of big-government proposals that would create at least $21 billion in new state spending in year one — a 45 percent hike. Ohio brings in roughly $30 billion a year. She wants to spend $21 billion more. The math is simple and terrifying: to pay for this tab, Amy Acton would have to more than double your state income tax.
We get more of the same after PolitiFact asked the White House for supporting evidence. From the White House answer to that inquiry we get the same information as we did from PolitiFact's "campaign-funded website" hotlink.
So, we've got Trump essentially translating the Ramaswamy campaign message into Trumpian hyperbolese.
Will PolitiFact notice? Or simply erase the differences as it has through the first part of the fact check?
The website’s calculations estimate that Acton’s proposals would cost more than $21 billion annually and says paying for them would require Ohio to double its state income tax.
Does the website say that Acton's proposals would cost more than $21 billion annually? We can't find that claim. But we can see where PolitiFact might have read between the lines and jumped to conclusions:
Ohio currently brings in roughly $30 billion in total annual revenue. Acton wants to spend $21 billion more.
That's two separate statements. The first is the annual revenue number. PolitiFact might want to flag that because it might go up or down over time. The second is just the $21 billion estimate above the income figure. And elsewhere on the same webpage it's clear the bulk of the $21 billion estimate is marked as occurring in the first year:
That's what we call "context."
PolitiFact goes on to charge that the website's calculations make "broad and unsupported assumptions," then goes back to focusing on a literal reading of Trump's claim, so far paying scant attention to the way the context should have adjusted their interpretation:
Ohio Department of Taxation figures show that the state collected about $11 billion in individual income taxes in fiscal 2025. We found no evidence that Acton supports doubling those proceeds by raising income taxes.
Unless PolitiFact is correct in its literal wooden interpretation of Trump's remark, it's making a straw man claim. The tax increase estimate is akin to comparing an object's size to something more familiar: "The size of a football field," for example. Sure, there's some political trickery in that comparison because it spreads the tax burden in terms of the income tax. Maybe Acton's true intent is to saddle the rich with any budget increases her policies incur.
That method's no more deceptive than what PolitiFact's doing in this fact check, however.
PolitiFact moves on to a section on Acton's policy proposals.
A policy giving a version of the earned income tax credit carries no price tag in terms of the Ohio budget.
PolitiFact likewise declines to place a dollar value on Acton's "affordability plan," which by undeclared means will lower prescription drug prices, provide medical debt relief, lower insurance premiums and address energy costs. Maybe it's all free.
Medical debt relief counts as the centerpiece of budget increase, and PolitiFact treats it as such. An expert said it was exaggerated. Details?
Daniel Skinner, an expert in health policy from Ohio University, said the $15.1 billion figure lacks credibility in part because it “assumes every person with medical debt would be eligible.” It also calls the cost “annual” even though buying and retiring existing debt would be largely a one-time expense, he said.Skinner's no expert on reading, or maybe he was relying on descriptions provided by PolitiFact. He missed the context spelling out the $15.1 billion as a first-year expense. Neither Skinner nor PolitiFact provide a clear statement that the cost is described as "annual." We covered that above. Skinner's conclusion requires inference, and it's not a particularly powerful inference.
And that part of the fact check helps illustrate the bankrupt nature of PolitiFact fact-checking. It's fine for PolitiFact and Skinner to infer that $15.1 billion is an annual figure, and on the other hand a critical misstep for the GOP to read Acton's unadorned proposal to provide medical debt relief and conclude that the unlimited campaign promise is, in truth, a limited promise with hidden limitations.
3. Forgive Medical Debt – No one should go bankrupt because of a necessary medical procedure, but I’ve heard too many stories from Ohioans who have had exactly that happen. Medical debt is the leading form of consumer debt, which is why on my first day in office I will direct our state to join the cities in our state – including Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo – that have successfully relieved nearly a billion dollars in medical debt for working families, often for pennies on the dollar, giving families some breathing room and the fresh start they need.Should we read between the lines like PolitiFact could have done with the Ramaswamy ads, or just focus on "Forgive Medical Debt" as PolitiFact did by focusing on the means of closing the Ohio budget gap caused by Acton's policy prescriptions?
Acton doesn't draw any clear cutoff point for the forgiveness of medical debt. But taking her to mean all medical debt counts as an unfair assumption in PolitiFact's eyes. In parallel, Trump and Ramaswamy do not say Acton's medical debt forgiveness cost of $15.1 billion will occur annually. PolitiFact assumes it and does not criticize itself for so doing.
What's PolitiFact's conclusion?
Trump said Acton “is trying to double your state income tax.”
That’s based on an estimate from Ramaswamy’s campaign that Acton’s proposals would cost more than $21 billion in additional annual spending.
False, for Ramaswamy's campaign didn't say what PolitiFact claims it said.
But that figure is based on broad and poorly sourced estimates that assume more people would benefit from Acton’s proposals than her proposals themselves outline. Ramaswamy’s estimate also makes false assumptions about Acton’s platform, including that she supports universal paid childcare, when she has not said that.Acton's proposals don't limit the reach of her proposals, so far as we can tell. What's PolitiFact's estimate of the cost? Apparently they're very cautious in making any assumptions or even educated guesses about the Acton price tag. It makes sense, though. If PolitiFact estimates $10 billion for Acton's first year that might make it look like there was some truth to Ramaswamy campaign claims. That wouldn't do, would it?
An unbiased fact checker uses the same approach every time, as dictated by circumstances and context. PolitiFact is not that fact checker. PolitiFact fact-checking deceives PolitiFact's audience using the very techniques politicians use.
Acton’s platform includes providing tax cuts to working families and child tax credits, and although she has not provided detailed information about how she would pay for these proposals, her campaign said she would not raise the state income tax to fund them.To repeat, the point of the ads was not that Acton would pay for them by raising the income tax. It was to contextualize the amount in a way people can feel, as with having people imagine paying their entire income tax bill by check in April rather than maybe getting a refund of taxes withheld.
The fact checkers missed the point. If missing the point was deliberate, then it's evil. If missing the point was accidental, it speaks poorly of the fact checkers and their layers of editors.
Afters:
PolitiFact's expert has just one political donation we found, to a Democrat. Perhaps he was an old friend, because it was a Democratic Party primary loser. PolitiFact often happens to find experts with rich histories of giving to Democrats, and we don't count Skinner among those. Back in Graves' day, PolitiFact's principles stated they cited neutral experts. That provision has appropriately disappeared from their statement of principles.
PolitiFact's non-partisan think-tank source, Ohio Policy Matters, is hilariously left-leaning right down to a staff that uniformly informs us of its pronouns. Sure, the organization is probably technically non-partisan. But there's ample focus on equity and inclusion, which are fruits from the tree of critical race theory/pedagogy with their roots in Marxism. They're about as neutral as the Heritage Foundation.
We might add that Democrat Sherrod Brown thinks highly of them. Ohio Policy Matters put this at the foot of their web page:
No comments:
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.