PolitiFact claims, without evidence, Trump touted chloroquine as a coronavirus cure

Should fact checkers hold themselves to the standards they expect others to meet?

We say yes.

Should fact checkers meet the standards they claim to uphold?

We say yes.

What does PolitiFact say?

(President Donald) Trump has touted chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus cure in more than a half-dozen public events since March 19.

PolitiFact published the above claim in an April 8, 2020 PolitiSplainer about hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug doctors have used in the treatment of coronavirus patients.

We were familiar with instances where Mr. Trump mentioned hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for coronavirus sufferers. But we had not heard him call it a cure. Accordingly, we tried to follow up on the evidence PolitiFact offered in support of its claim.

The article did not contain any mention of a source identifying the "half-dozen public events since March 19," so we skipped to the end to look at PolitiFact's source list. That proved disappointing.

We tweeted at the article's authors expressing our dismay at the lack of supporting documentation. Our tweet garnered no reply, no attempt to supply the missing information and no change to the original article.

Of note, when co-author Funke tweeted out a link to the article on April 8 his accompanying description counted as far more responsible than the language in the article itself:

"Here's what you need to know about hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug that President Trump has repeatedly touted as a potential COVID-19 treatment."

Does "cure" mean the same thing as "potential treatment" in PolitiFactLand?

We've surveyed Mr. Trump's use of the terms "cure" and "game changer" at the White House website and found nothing that would justify the language PolitiFact used of the president.

What else does PolitiFact say?

The burden of proof is on the speaker, and we rate statements based on the information known at the time the statement is made.

 What if the speaker says "Trump has touted chloroquine or hydroxycloroquine as a coronavirus cure"? Does the speaker still have the burden of proof? If the speaker is PolitiFact, that is?

It looks like the fact-checkers have yet again allowed a(n apparently false) public narrative to guide their fact-checking.

PolitiFact's charity for the Democrats

PolitiFact is partial to Democrats.

Back in 2018 we published a post that lists the main points in our argument that PolitiFact leans left. But today's example doesn't quite fit any of the items on that list, so we're adding to it:

PolitiFact's treatment of ambiguity leans left

When politicians make statements that may mean more than one thing, PolitiFact tends to see the ambiguity in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.

That's the nature of this example, updating an observation from my old blog Sublime Bloviations back in 2011.

When politician say "taxes" and does not describe in context what taxes are they talking about, what do they mean?

PolitiFact decided the Republican, Michele Bachmann, was talking about all taxes.

PolitiFact decided the Democrat, Marcia Fudge, was talking about income taxes.

Based on the differing interpretations, Bachmann got a "False" rating from PolitiFact while Fudge received a "True" rating.

That brings us to the 2020 election campaign and PolitiFact's not-really-a-fact-check article "Fact-checking the Democratic claim that Amazon doesn't pay taxes."

The article isn't a fact check as such because PolitiFact skipped out on giving "Truth-O-Meter" ratings to Andrew Yang and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Both could easily have scored Bachmannesque "False" ratings.

Yang and Warren both said about the same thing, that Amazon paid no taxes.

Various news agencies have reported that Amazon paid no federal corporate income taxes in 2017 and 2018. But news reports have also made clear that Amazon paid taxes other than federal corporate income taxes.

Of course neither Yang nor Warren will receive the "False" rating PolitiFact bestowed on Bachmann for a comparable error. PolitiFact treated both their statements as though they restricted their claims to federal corporate income tax.

Is it true that despite making billions of dollars, Amazon pays zero dollars in federal income tax?

Short answer: Amazon’s tax returns are private, so we don’t know for sure what Amazon pays in federal taxes. But Amazon’s estimates on its annual 10-K filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are the closest information we have on this matter. They show mixed results for the past three years: no federal income tax payments for 2017 and 2018, but yes on payments for 2019.

That's the type of impartiality a Democrat can usually expect from PolitiFact. They do not need to specify what kind of taxes they are talking about. PolitiFact will interpret their statements charitably. 

Afters

It's worth noting that PolitiFact admitted not knowing whether Amazon paid federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018 ("we don’t know for sure what Amazon pays in federal taxes"). And PolitiFact suspends its "burden of proof" criterion yet again for Democrats.


Feb. 10, 2020: Edited to remove a few characters of feline keyboard interference.

PolitiFact Unplugs 'Truth-O-Meter' for Elizabeth Warren

We seem to be seeing an increase of fact check stories from PolitiFact that do not feature any "Truth-O-Meter" rating. One of the latest pleads that it simply did not have enough information to offer a rating of Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's claim that the U.S. Women's National Team (soccer) pulls in more revenue while receiving less pay than the men.

But look at the low-hanging fruit!

The @USWNT is #1 in the world & contributes higher revenues for @USSoccer than the men’s team, but they’re still paid a fraction of what the men earn. Women deserve equal pay for equal (or better!) work in offices, factories, AND on the soccer field. https://t.co/ftOSrjRyOE

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 11, 2019

The women on the USWNT are not doing equal or better work than the men if the women cannot beat the men on the pitch. The level of competition is lower for women's soccer. And Warren's introduction to her argument is not an equal pay for equal work argument. It is an argument based on market valuation aside from the quality of the work.

It's reasonable to argue that if the women's game consistently creates more revenue than the men's game then the women deserve more money than the men.

That's not an equal pay for equal work argument. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

It was ridiculous for Warren to make that stretch in her tweet and typical of left-leaning PolitiFact to ignore it in favor of something it would prefer to report.

Did that principle of burden of proof disappear again?

PolitiFact's statement of principles includes a "burden of proof" principle that PolitiFact uses to hypocritically ding politicians who make claims they don't back up while allowing PolitiFact to give those politicians ratings such as "False" even if PolitiFact has not shown the claim false.

The principle pops out of existence at times. Note what PolitiFact says about its evidence touching Warren's claim:

Ultimately, the compensation formulas are too variable — and too little is known about the governing documents — for us to put Warren’s claim on the Truth-O-Meter.

 So instead of the lack of evidence leading to a harsh rating for Warren, in this case it leads to no "Truth-O-Meter" rating at all.

Color us skeptical that PolitiFact could clear up the discrepancy if it bothered to try.


Afters

Given Warren's clear reference to "equal pay for equal work," we should expect a fact checker to note that women who compete professionally in soccer cannot currently field a team that would beat a professional men's team.

Not a peep from PolitiFact.

Women's national teams do compete against men on occasion. That is, they do practice scrimmages against young men on under-17 and under-15 teams. And the boys tend to win.

But PolitiFact is content if you don't know that. Nor does its audience need to know that the U.S. Women's National Team's success makes no kind of coherent argument for equal pay for equal work.

More Deceptive "Principles" from PolitiFact

PolitiFact supposedly has a "burden of proof" that it uses to help judge Political claims. If a politician makes a claim and supporting evidence doesn't turn up, PolitiFact considers the claim false.

PolitiFact Executive Director Aaron Sharockman expounded on the "burden of proof" principle on May 15, 2019 while addressing a gathering at the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia:

If you say something, if you make a factual claim, online, on television, in the newspaper, you should be able to support it with evidence. And if you cannot or will not support that claim with evidence we say you're guilty.

We'll, we'll rate that claim negatively. Right? Especially if you're a person in power. You make a claim about the economy, or health, or development, you should make the claim with the information in your back pocket and say "Here. Here's why it's true." And if you can't, well, you probably shouldn't be making the claim.

As with its other supposed principles, PolitiFact applies "burden of proof" inconsistently. PolitiFact often telegraphs its inconsistency by publishing a 'Splainer or "In Context" article like this May 24, 2019 item:

PolitiFact refrains from putting Milano's statement on its cheesy "Truth-O-Meter" because PolitiFact could not figure out if her statement was true.

Now doesn't that sound exactly like a potential application of the "burden of proof" criterion Sharockman discussed?

Why isn't Milano "guilty"?

In this case PolitiFact found evidence Milano was wrong about what the bill said. But the objective and neutral fact-checkers still could not bring themselves to rate Milano's claim negatively.

PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):

Our conclusion

Milano and others are claiming that a new abortion law in Georgia states that women will be subject to prosecution. It actually doesn’t say that, but that doesn’t mean the opposite — that women can’t be prosecuted for an abortion — is true, either. We’ll have to wait and see how prosecutors and courts interpret the laws before we know which claim is accurate. 

What's so hard about applying principles consistently? If somebody says the bill states something and "It actually doesn't say that" then the claim is false. Right? It's not even a burden of proof issue.

And if somebody says the bill will not allow women to be prosecuted, and PolitiFact wants to use its "burden of proof" criterion to fallaciously reach the conclusion that the statement was false, then go right ahead.

Spare us the lilly-livered inconsistency.

PolitiFact: One standard for me, and another for thee

On Feb. 5, 2018, PolitiFact published an article on cherry picking from one of its veteran writers, Louis Jacobson. Titled, "The Age of Cherry-picking," it led with a claim of fact as its main hook:

These days, it isn’t just that Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus. Increasingly, politicians on either side are cherry-picking evidence to support their version of reality.

With cherry-picking on the increase, and with both sides using it more, certainly readers would want to see what PolitiFact has to say about it.

But is it true? Is cherry-picking on the increase?

One had to read far down the column to reach Jacobson's evidence (bold emphasis added):

So is there more cherry-picking today in political rhetoric than in the past? That’s hard to say -- we couldn’t find anyone who measures it. But several political scientists and historians said that even if it’s not more common, the use of the tactic may have turned a corner.

Seriously?

If a writer tries to hook me into reading a story based on the claim that cherry-picking is on the increase, then takes over 20 paragraphs before getting around to telling me that no good evidence supports the claim, I want my money back.

This isn't hard, fact checkers. If it's hard to say if there is more cherry-picking today in political rhetoric than in the past, don't say "Increasingly, politicians on either side are cherry-picking evidence to support their version of reality."

Don't do it.

Even a Democrat probably couldn't entirely get away with a claim so poorly supported by the evidence, thanks to PolitiFact's occasionally-applied principle of the burden of proof:

Burden of proof – People who make factual claims are accountable for their words and should be able to provide evidence to back them up. We will try to verify their statements, but we believe the burden of proof is on the person making the statement.

We used Twitter to needle PolitiFact over this issue, surprisingly drawing some response (nothing of substance). But the exchange ended up productive when co-editor Jeff D, who runs the PFB Twitter account, contributed this summary:

This thread is Exhibit Infinity of PolitiFact holding themselves to different standards than those they rate. https://t.co/aHyOSVYjno

— PolitiFact Bias (@PolitiFactBias) February 5, 2018

That about sums it up. One standard for me, and another for thee.



Update Feb. 7, 2018: Supplied URL to PolitiFact's article on cherry picking, added tag labels.

Is PolitiFact California stupid? Mike Pence and the mythical denial of evolution (Updated)

Note July 30, 2016: Since we published this post, PolitiFact has scrapped its original fact-check of Gov. Brown and published a heavily revised version giving Brown's claim about Mike Pence a "Half True" rating. We've appended an update to our original article in response and updated the link to the original story by linking to the Internet Archive version.

PolitiFact California has ruled it "True" [original version at the Internet Archive] that Republican candidate for vice president Mike Pence denied evolution exists. But PolitiFact California provided absolutely no evidence that Pence ever made any such denial.

Is PolitiFact California stupid?

PolitiFact California relied for its evidence on a Pence interview from "Hardball," a television program hosted by journalist Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS:
You want to educate the American people about science and its relevance today.  Do you believe in evolution, sir?

PENCE:
I—do I believe in evolution?  I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that‘s in them.

MATTHEWS:
Right. But do you believe in evolution as the way he did it??

PENCE:
The means, Chris, that he used to do that, I can‘t say.

Pence's answer to Matthews falls squarely squarely into the agnostic realm. Pence tells Matthews that he does not know whether (theistic) evolution explains creation. It's worth noting, however, that later in the interview Matthews charges that Pence believes in evolution but will not admit it for fear of offending his conservative constituency. Matthews knows something PolitiFact California does not?

Stating one does not know whether God created the universe by evolution is not nearly the same thing as a denial that evolution exists.

This is the fact of the matter: PolitiFact California nowhere provided any evidence to support Jerry Brown's charge that Pence denied evolution exists. Rating the claim "True" just makes PolitiFact California look stupid. And biased.




Update July 29, 2016: Deleted a redundant word in the last paragraph.


Update July 30, 2016

In the afternoon of July 29, 2016, PolitiFact archived its original "True" rating for Gov. Brown and published a new version of the fact check, this time giving Brown a "Half True" rating.

The new version continues PolitiFact California's cutesy inclusion of irrelevancies like Pence's skepticism of climate change. Is PolitiFact hinting at a causal relationship between skepticism of climate change and denial of evolution? If not, we don't see the relevance.

Our take? PolitiFact California half fixed the problem with its fact check. It's not reasonable to take the lack of any solid evidence of a denial and to then say that the claim of a denial is half true.

Jeff D. put it well on Twitter:

@CAPolitiFact @christhejourno If I say I don't know who is buried in Grant's tomb it is not half-true that I'm denying Grant is buried there

— PolitiFact Bias (@PolitiFactBias) July 29, 2016

The fact is that PolitiFact does not have evidence Pence even expressed skepticism of the existence of evolution.

The worst that can be said of Pence on the issue of evolution is that his statement admits to doubt that evolution explains the origin and diversity of life on earth. But even evolutionists like Sir Francis Crick have expressed such doubts. Crick, in his book "Life Itself," proposed that life on earth was seeded from elsewhere in the universe.

The problem for PolitiFact California stems from the many ways in which the word "evolution" is understood. Gov. Brown's phrasing hints that Pence rejected every facet of evolution up to and including descent with modification. Pence's answer to Matthews' questions appeared to use "evolution" in the broader sense of explaining the origin and diversity of life.

The failure to strictly define the key term helps lead to a muddled and useless fact check.

It makes no sense to call it "Half True" that Pence denied evolution when one can produce no reasonable evidence in support of the claim. This is the best PolitiFact California can do:

Pence’s comments could be interpreted as rejecting evolution, but there’s no hard evidence to back up that idea.

Of course it's possible to interpret Pence's words as a denial of evolution: All it takes is a little fallacious thinking.

PolitiFact dropping its ruling of Brown to "Half True" was a half measure.





Edit: Added link to PF's Half True version at "Half True" text in first paragraph of Update. -Jeff 0828 PST 7/30/16

Different strokes for different folks

Folk A: President Barack Obama

Obama claimed border crossings are at the lowest level since the 1970s.

We cannot directly check Obama's literal claim -- which would include the number of people who failed and succeeeded to cross the border -- because those statistics are not maintained by the federal government.

Truth-O-Meter rating: "Half True"

Folk B: Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani said blacks and whites are acquitted of murder at about the same rate.

We couldn't find any statistical evidence to support Giuliani’s claim, and experts said they weren't aware of any, either. We found some related data, but that data only serves to highlight some of the racial disproportion in the justice system.

We found "related data" PolitiFact apparently couldn't find:

Blacks charged with murder, rape and other major crimes are more likely to be acquitted by juries or freed because of a dismissal than white defendants, according to an analysis of Justice Department statistics.

Truth-O-Meter rating: "False"

Different strokes for different folks.

Is PolitiFact incapable of objectivity on climate change?

We noted PolitiFact's failure to report accurately on Marco Rubio's climate change statement from May 11, 2014.  Whatever's much bigger than doubling down on its disgraceful reporting on climate change, that's what PolitiFact's doing with its May 19 fact check of California governor Jerry Brown.

Brown said virtually no Republican in Washington D.C. accepts climate change science.

PolitiFact's fact check of Brown's claim is comical.

PolitiFact cites polls showing Republicans are more skeptical of mankind's role in causing global warming.  That isn't directly relevant to whether Republicans in D.C. reject the science of climate change.  PolitiFact doesn't bother telling its readers over 20 percent of Republicans in a 2013 Pew Research poll think humans are the primary cause of global warming.

PolitiFact touts many (mostly unnamed) examples of Republicans questioning climate change science "to some degree."  The degree is kind of important when we're talking about rejecting science, isn't it?

PolitiFact cites Marco Rubio as a recent example of a climate change denier.  We showed why PolitiFact's charge against Rubio is false.

PolitiFact cites Republicans John Boehner and Ted Cruz in a similar way.  The Boehner and Cruz examples share essentially the same flaws as the Rubio one.  The press takes statements out of context and draws its preferred conclusion.

PolitiFact cites the Organizing For Action's lengthy list of supposed "climate change deniers," assuring readers that OFA shows evidence for each one.  OFA was President Obama's campaign organization before it changed its name and purpose.  Therefore it's just as objective as press reports taken out of context.

PolitiFact cites an article about John McCain, saying it shows he's changed from his former acceptance of man-caused climate change.  We invite anyone to strain the article for that finding.

After that, we get the list of eight Republicans who supposedly accept climate change science.

And after that, PolitiFact admits that there may be more than eight.  PolitiFact doesn't tell you how many more there might be.  That would involve fact checking.

After all that, PolitiFact rates Gov. Brown "Mostly True":

Brown said that "virtually no Republican" in Washington accepts climate change science. When it comes to on-the-record comments of members of Congress, Brown’s characterization is about right.

We found at least eight Republicans in Congress who publicly voiced support for the scientific consensus and many more conservative legislators who deny either a human link to the changing climate, or the fact that the climate is changing altogether.

A reason for caution, however, is comments from someone like Yarnold — who suggest GOP members of Congress acknowledge climate change science behind closed doors but avoid the talk in public for political reasons.

We rate Brown’s claim Mostly True.

There are two major problems with PolitiFact's rating.

First, it's a mistake to use an all-or-nothing approach to acceptance of climate science.  That approach isn't used in establishing measurements of scientific consensus on the issue, so that measuring stick gives us an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Second, unless PolitiFact is accepting OFA's list at face value, PolitiFact simply assumes that over 200 Republicans are climate change deniers.  And even if PolitiFact accepts OFA's list at face value, PolitiFact is still assuming more than 100 Republicans are climate change deniers.  Those assumptions fly directly in the face of one of PolitiFact's principles, which look more and more like Pirates of the Caribbean "guidelines" with each passing day:

Burden of proof – People who make factual claims are accountable for their words and should be able to provide evidence to back them up. We will try to verify their statements, but we believe the burden of proof is on the person making the statement.

Don't worry, Gov. Brown. PolitiFact will pretend to have the proof you don't have.

Think about it.  If just half the 128 not accounted for from the OFA list plus McCain (Cruz and Rubio are on OFA's list, McCain isn't) and the elite eight, then the percentage of Republicans accepting the supposed science of climate change is 26 percent.  Even overlooking the mind-boggling sloppiness of the fact check, we're left with a range of 3-49 percent (counting McCain as a denier).

It's irresponsible journalism to use biased secondary sources like OFA as the basis for a fact-check finding.  It's incumbent on the journalist to verify the accuracy of such sources.  We see no indication of that from PolitiFact.

This is PolitiFact fact checking.  But there's another name for it.  Crap.


Addendum

Context, Context

Hot Air has a little item on Gov. Brown's statement revealing its original context.  Brown brought up climate change as a cause of California's current problem with wild fires.

It's settled science or something.  Wouldn't PolitiFact have questioned it otherwise?


Correction/Update 5/20/2014:
Fixed assorted grammatical problems and added a parenthetical "mostly unnamed."

The burden of the burden of proof

Often we have criticized PolitiFact for employing a potentially fallacious criterion among its principles (emphasis added):

Burden of proof -- People who make factual claims are accountable for their words and should be able to provide evidence to back them up. We will try to verify their statements, but we believe the burden of proof is on the person making the statement.

In practice this often means that if a person makes a statement and has no evidence to back it up, as with Harry Reid claiming that Mitt Romney paid no income taxes for 10 consecutive years by the account of an anonymous friend, then Harry Reid receives a rating along the lines of "Pants on Fire."

While it was extremely unlikely that Romney escaped income taxes for 10 straight years, part of the reasoning PolitiFact used in its judgment comes from the burden of proof fallacy (bold emphasis added):

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

Which brings us to PolitiFact's latest bending of its own rules.  In rating a claim by Vice President Joe Biden, PolitiFact removed the burden of proof from Biden and placed it on Biden's target, Mitt Romney:

Biden said that under Romney’s tax plan "the average senior would have to pay $460 a year more in tax for their Social Security."

That figure is just one way to fill in the blanks in Romney’s largely unexplained tax proposal. It’s an average of a hypothetical, and it’s at odds with what Romney has said he’ll do, which is to protect deductions for the middle class and not raise taxes.

When Biden moves to "fill in the blanks" he's making stuff up.  Otherwise there's no blank to fill.  Romney is not obligated to fill in the blanks, yet PolitiFact lets Biden skate essentially because Romney's failure to provide detail supposedly provides some justification for Biden making stuff up.

That's not fact checking, and it does not represent consistent adherence to PolitiFact's statement of principles.  It adds another brick to the edifice indicating a liberal bias at PolitiFact.

PFB Penpals: What about Harry Reid?

We do occasionally receive missives from our adoring fans.  It seemed a good idea to feature a comment from our Facebook page since it provides a good excuse to review a few things about PolitiFact Bias while also addressing Harry Reid's recent "Pants on Fire" rating.

Sam Rothenberg wrote:

Where's your post on PolitiFact's "liberal bias" in giving Democrat Harry Reid a "pants on fire" for saying that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes for at least 10 years?

1)  We won't have a post about a "liberal bias" associated with Reid receiving the lowest possible rating from PolitiFact.  That wouldn't make any sense, for Reid is a liberal.  We think all "Pants on Fire" ratings are unfair since PolitiFact lists only a subjective criterion for applying the ruling.  The current post will offer our assessment of the Reid situation.

2)  PolitiFact Bias does not exist primarily to feature the work of its proprietors.  We try to spotlight the work of others.  Consequently, our response time often has a lag with breaking news, particularly if we find ourselves busy with other things.

What about that "Pants on Fire" for Reid?

Again, we think all "Pants on Fire" ratings are unfair.  The definition PolitiFact offers is subjective, so it makes sense to conclude that all such ratings represent an opinion judgment from PolitiFact.  That said, there's at least one positive aspect to the Reid rating:  PolitiFact has as one of its principles a "burden of proof" criterion that we expected would force a harsh PolitiFact rating if PolitiFact elected to rate Reid's statement.  PolitiFact acted consistently with its principles in rating Reid harshly.

When Democrats made Reid's claim a central issue of the election, it tended to force PolitiFact's hand.

On the downside, PolitiFact often misapplies its burden of proof criterion.  The misapplication does not serve properly as a fact-checking tool.  Rather, it is a helpful principle in argument or debate.  When a party concludes, as PolitiFact does, that a statement is true or false based simply on a lack of evidence, the conclusion represents the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam--the fallacy of argument from ignorance.  When PolitiFact bases a ruling on its burden of proof criterion it is not engaged in fact checking.  It is acting as the self-appointed rhetoric police.

There are times, of course, when one can make a good case for the truth or falsehood of a claim if the lack of evidence concerns something that we reasonably expect to find. 

Did PolitiFact follow that principle?

PolitiFact arguably did follow that principle.

The article cites tax experts who find it very unlikely that Romney could avoid tax liability for 10 straight years.  But all that does is provide a reasonable justification for a "False" rating.  The "Pants on Fire" rating remains subjective.

As of today, Republicans are about 68 percent more likely than Democrats to receive a (subjective) "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact for a false claim since it started in 2007.  Democrats tend not to notice the unfairness as much since it affects Democrats much less frequently.

The bias is anti-Republican.  It just happens that PolitiFact's methods damage members of both parties.