Facebook comments show the dire need for the PolitiFact Bias website

Over the past few days, we received a number of comments on our Facebook page that help show the dire need for our work.

We are not identifying the person by name, though we expect it's easy to find on our page. It's a public page and the comments were posted in response to our public posts on our page. In short, it's public.

We discourage any attempt to harass this person or make contact with them against their wishes.

Beyond that, we offer thanks for the comments because we can use them to help educate others. We're using quotation marks but correcting errors without making them obvious. So the quotations are not always verbatim.

We're spotlighting these comments because they are so typical of our critics.

Response to G, of the G'nO

Our post on the worst of PolitiFact's Reddit AMA drew a lengthy response from "G, of the G'nO." Interested readers can find that comment through the link in uninterrupted form. Here, we'll respond point by point in conversational fashion, breaking G's comment up into separate sections as we offer comment.

Wow. I was actually excited to see this site but, it looks so far like I might be the only one who has -- but, I'll step up and comment on this anyway. Overall, I think the questions you posed in this post are valid, on track, and worthwhile asking. Unfortunately, I also feel your interpretation of the answers to the questions posed completely nullifies them, takes them way off base, and makes it all a virtual waste of time.

We can't wait to read the specifics.

Your first two-part question:
Part 1: I would have to say that I believe (but, of course cannot state with certainty) that Sharockman most likely knows or, at least, has a large degree of insight into the ideological make up of his staff. My gut agrees with you in saying that he dodged that question.

Okay, on this one it sounds like we agree. Just to be clear, however, the question was not originally posed by us. It is "ours" in the sense that we used it as a heading in our post.

Part 2: From this point you state "it gets worse" but what actually happens is you just get a bit silly. Sharockman gave a reasonable answer -- you just didn't like it. That said, your idea that they could have "more balance" could certainly hold water. But then it just begs the question as to who wants to expend the energy schlepping that bucket of water around. After all, this portion of the two part question primarily seems to address the possible bias around the rating system itself. If I make the claim "that purple ball is blue" we would be able to read it a multitude of ways: false, mostly false, half true, mostly true. But, regardless of its ultimate rating, the fact still remains that the ball is purple and everyone except the colorblind should be able to get the point.

While we did not write anything about not liking Sharockman's answer, we did offer a substantive criticism of his answer that you do not appear to acknowledge. If Sharockman doesn't know the ideologies of his staff, he has no reason to have any sort of confidence that three or four people in PolitiFact's "star chamber" will produce judgments based on ideological balance. Without that assurance, Sharockman's reassuring words are empty.

Your follow-up question about the predominance of conservatives being fact checked -- I agree: great question.

Again, it wasn't our question. And we did not offer the opinion that it was a great question. We thought Sharockman could have offered a good answer but did not.

But, here again, Sharockman actually provided a good answer and, while it seems like you might be on the scent of making a good point, you never really make it -- and your response is fatally flawed from multiple angles:

** First, your statement "The only way the number of fact checks of Obama can carry is relevance is if that number is greater than the number of ratings of conservatives." That's just an absolutely silly assertion. Why would Obama (a single, individual liberal) need a greater number of ratings than all conservatives combined to carry relevance? In the vein of your flimflammery verbiage, I say hogwash!

Quite simply, touting the large number of ratings given to a special case (the only U.S. president PolitiFact has ever really bothered to rate, as well as a two-time presidential candidate) does nothing to address the imbalance charged by the reader. It's a meaningless metric in answer to the question, and any fact checker should know better. It's like saying more Raiders than Texans make the Pro Bowl and somebody objecting by saying "But the Texans' Joe Smith has been named to the Pro Bowl three years straight." It doesn't address the issue.

Combining the Obama rating with the ratings of other Democrats could mean something. But the Obama ratings by themselves mean nothing. It's a nutty case of cherry-picking.

** From there you say you found 68 ratings for Clinton since 2010. OK, good. You then make the point that a Clinton statement in 2008 is not relevant to 2016. Agreed -- but, the statement from 2008 lands outside of the range of those 68 ratings you found and doesn't really seem to apply to anything. However, since you made the point, that point can actually be used to poke holes in your next comment -- you found 86 ratings for Trump since 2011. So what? Sharockman's claim that, [of the 2016 candidates, Clinton was fact checked the most] may have actually been made within the context of relevance to the 2016 campaign -- which would pretty much make everything before 2015 moot. How many times has Clinton been rated since the beginning of the 2016 campaign? I don't know. I haven't checked. Like I said, you may be on the scent of making a good point -- but you have yet to make it.

Don't neglect our point, which is that Sharockman isn't making any sort of reasonable point. If you look at the ratings, both Trump and Clinton are arguably putting themselves forward (as candidates--ed.) at the beginning of the timeline we identified. We didn't go into detail because we're not fact-checking Sharockman. We're just poking holes in his argument. Compare Trump to Clinton however you wish as a 2016 candidate. Chances are exceedingly high you'll need to cheat to put Clinton in the lead on the number of ratings.

You don't appear to have made any sort of argument that rescues Sharockman from the charges we've made against him.

As to the difference between "false" and "pants on fire" -- I actually like this question but, really, who cares?

We do. And so should you. One of the main features of our site is a research section. The most developed research project we've published so far looks at PolitiFact's bias in applying its "Pants on Fire" ratings. The key premise of that research is the lack of any objective means of distinguishing between "False" ratings and "Pants on Fire" ratings. We're always amused when figures from PolitiFact address the issue in a way that supports the premise of our research.

There are obviously five general ratings which are all fairly defined with the criteria for each. False is false -- and, you know what -- pants on fire is also false. It just has a little flair attached for style and enjoyment of the readers -- it's childlike and funny. It points out things of a ridiculous nature -- like the post to which I write this reply. Is that subjective? Sure, I guess it is…

The other ratings are better defined than the giant blur that divides "False" from "Pants on Fire." But there's no good evidence PolitiFact pays particular attention to the definitions it gives for its ratings. A literally true statement can receive any rating. We pick on the "Pants on Fire" rating because the definition offers no real guidance at all in applying any objective criterion. And you appear to at least lean toward our view that the rating is essentially a subjective measure.

So, let's see what we've got:

• You more-or-less agreed with us twice.
• You said Sharockman's reasoning was good but didn't support your statement.
• You said our view of the importance of the Obama ratings was hogwash but didn't say why.
• You think maybe Clinton was rated more times than Trump (do maybes support Sharockman?).
• You don't know why the line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is important. Hopefully we cleared that up for you.

You really have to marvel over how much better we are than PolitiFact at responding to critics.

Yet more scintillating offsite criticism

Gotta love it.

A member of a message board posted some of our material for discussion--it seems somebody was using Angie Drobnic Holan's chart to draw firm conclusions about candidate truthfulness.

How were our views criticized this time?

Behold:

For the record, the site (...) is run by two bloggers. One of whom lists beer as one of his interests and the other documents the bands that he likes as a credential.

So this time we get not just ad hominem fallacies but incredibly lame ad hominem fallacies. And the earlier post of our material included some of our responses to similar criticism. I guess it truly doesn't help to point out to people when they're reasoning fallaciously.

Dude: It's the movies I like that serve as a credential. Not the bands. Sheesh. What a maroon. j/k

On the positive side, he didn't accuse us of posting anonymously as some have done. So, credit where it's due.

Clearly we need to rush forward with our new page answering the most common criticisms (count ad hominem fallacies as one such) we receive.

"Supreme conservative whinybaby" strikes back

As ever, we're interested in answering criticism of PolitiFact Bias. But you wouldn't believe the work we have to do to find anything that's actually worth taking to time to answer.

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.
http://bewznewznvewz.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ts_31.html

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.

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 his

https://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293


Although, he seems to be a Steve Morse fan. I can get with that.

I 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?

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.

Attack of the offsite critics!

Unlike PolitiFact, PolitiFact Bias regularly engages its critics.

We gained an opportunity recently to have some back-and-forth with some off-site critics. We ran across some traffic to our site coming from a message board. Somebody had linked to this site, and the link had drawn dismissive responses. But the responses were quite vague about the reasons behind their dismissiveness. So I joined the forum to see if I could uncover those reasons.

The first two detailed reasons were based on misunderstandings. One critic thought we were saying that Republicans and Democrats lie equally. We don't say that because we have no idea. Finding out would take a detailed and complex study. We're not aware of any serious attempt at such a thing (we're aware of one unserious attempt).

Another critic thought we were saying Democrats and Republicans lie proportionately to each other. Again, that's not what we say. Finding out the proportions of Democrat and Republican lies would take a detailed study. We don't pretend to have done anything of the kind.

These misunderstandings stem from our attempts to describe what results PolitiFact's ratings ought to give if PolitiFact used the types of editorial discretion it describes, but did so with ideological blindness. PolitiFact's collection of ratings would still suffer from selection bias, so the ratings would not support generalizations about the proportions of lies for either of the two political parties. But the selections would have a "shape" of sorts, and we say that shape should be about proportional for both parties regardless of whether one states more untruths than the other.

What did we learn from engaging our critics on this occasion? We found no legitimate criticism, but found good reason to improve our description of a minor point we make at the site.


Correction Dec. 21, 2015: Fixed some minor typos and added a comma.

Letters: "Your attempts at proving their bias are as weak as ..."

Recently we decided to establish a page addressing the criticisms this page receives.

An email exchange from Dec. 14-15, 2015 helps lay the foundation for that page, addressing the criticism that we don't prove PolitiFact's liberal bias.

For some odd reason, people skip right past the site description that says we expose PolitiFact's bias, mistakes and flimflammery. So right at the top we're telling visitors that not everything we post is intended to establish that PolitiFact is biased toward the left.

The email came from W. Thompson. That's his real name, so far as we know, though we're not using his first name because of his concerns about receiving right-wing attacks.

We condemn any attempt to identify and personally harass Mr. Thompson in any way over his politics. 

The first exchange between Thompson and me is above-the-fold. Those interested in the rest should follow the jump-break. We included a summary statement at the end.

Dec. 14-15, 2015

W. THOMPSON

I just came across your PoitiFactbias.com web site and read the page I came to.

And you accuse PolitiFact of being biased? Your attempts at proving their bias are as weak as Republican attempts to spin their disasters off on the Democrats.

B. WHITE 

You wrote:

I just came across your PoitiFactbias.com web site and read the page I came to.

Thanks for visiting and reading.

And you accuse PolitiFact of being biased?

Yes, we accuse PolitiFact of being biased, and we provide evidence in support of the accusation. It isn't clear from your message whether you read any of that material.

Your attempts at proving their bias are as weak as Republican attempts to spin their disasters off on the Democrats.

As your analogy lacks any specifics at either end, it's hard to know whether your criticism has any meaning to it.

I'm in the process of developing a page for the critics of PolitiFact Bias. We encounter the same lame criticisms over and over again, so I figured it would help to provide visitors a road map to help them find where we've addressed their complaints.

I'd start you off here.

I'd like your permission to print your message and your followup as a post to PolitiFact Bias.

Thanks again.