Republican uses wrong embedded URL, receives "False" rating as a reward (Updated)

Have we mentioned lately that PolitiFact is biased and leans left? Ready for another example?

Buckle up.

Before looking at anything PolitiFact California had to say about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's claim, we had reason to suspect something weird was going on. We knew the CBO estimated potential job losses in the millions for a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour. And PolitiFact often gives partial credit for a valid underlying point. So a politician can give a figure that's substantially off and still get a rating in the "Mostly False" to "Mostly True" range.

In McCarthy's case, it seems that his office put together a press release and used the wrong URL. The Congressional Budget Office put together a report in 2019 estimating the effects of a minimum wage hike to $15 per hour and its high-end estimate for job losses was 3.7 million.

On the other hand, the CBO recently gave a new assessment of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and revised its job loss estimates down. The high-end estimate dropped to 2.7 million.

Here's the relevant part of the Feb. 9, 2021 press release:

At this critical point, the Democrats’ big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour — a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found could cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs. Plus, these job losses would disproportionately hit already economically disadvantaged populations the most.

The new version of the CBO's report came out on Feb. 8, 2021, the day before McCarthy's office published the press release. It's plausible and perhaps likely the press release was largely composed before the CBO released the new report. The press release cited the known report, and staffers hunted up the embedded URL leading to the brand new report.

Of course we do not know that is what happened. Certainly if McCarthy knew of the new report and its updated estimates and stuck with the old estimates--even while using the qualifier "previously"--that counts as misleading.

But here's the thing: PolitiFact concluded, just as we did, that McCarthy appeared to cite the 2019 report. PolitiFact put that reveal front and center in its "If Your Time Is Short" bullet point summary:

• McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike.

• But in his statement, he cited the CBO’s new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost.
  

Yes, PolitiFact, McCarthy appears to be citing the 2019 CBO analysis. And, yes, the press release "cited" the 2021 report insofar as it embedded the link to that report instead of the 2019 one.

Therefore, PolitiFact said, McCarthy's claim was "False" notwithstanding his valid point that the CBO gave a high-end estimate for job losses in the millions.

Anyone who thinks that's fair needs to learn more about PolitiFact's inconsistencies on rating numbers claims. McCarthy could easily have received a "Half True" and especially so if he was a Democrat making a claim Democrats would like to be true.

Wisconsin Montana Democrat Steve Bullock said a quarter of gun sales avoid background checks. PolitiFact Wisconsin said his claim was "Mostly False" even though it said the true number was only 13 percent. Going by that number, Bullock exaggerated by at least 53 percent.

For comparison, McCarthy's use of the 2019 CBO figure exaggerated the truth by 37 percent. And PolitiFact ruled McCarthy's claim "False."

It's yet another reminder that PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" ratings are subjective and not ultimately rooted in objective findings.

Correction/Update July 29, 2022: We incorrectly identified Steve Bullock as a "Wisconsin Democrat." Bullock was the Democratic governor of Montana. H/T to PFB friend Matthew Hoy for pointing out the error.

PolitiFact California rates "clean water" claim "True," doesn't define "clean water"

What is "clean water"? It depends on whom you ask, among a variety of different factors.

In California, for example, one can use the federal drinking water standard or the California drinking water standard. Not that using either standard would invalidate the opinion of one who wants to use Mexican water quality standards.

In spite of the lack of any set standard for drawing a clean (pun intended) distinction between "clean water" and "unclean water," PolitiFact California crowned Gov. Gavin Newsom's claim that over 1 million Californians do not have clean water for drinking or bathing with its highest truth designation: "True."

That's supposed to mean that Newsom left nothing significant out, such as what standard he was using to call water "clean."

It's a basic rule of fact checking. If somebody says over 1 million people do not have X, the fact checker needs to have X clearly defined before it's possible to check the numerical claim.

PolitiFact California simply didn't bother, instead leaning on the expert opinions of environmental justice advocate Jonathan London of UC Davis and the equally non-neutral Kelsey Hinton (bold emphasis added):

"Unfortunately, (Newsom’s) number is true,’ added Kelsey Hinton, spokesperson for the Community Water Center, a San Joaquin Valley nonprofit that advocates for clean drinking water.

As evidence, both London and Hinton pointed to a 2017 drinking water compliance report by the State Water Resources Control Board, which regulates water quality. The report shows that an estimated 592,000 Californians lived in a public water district that received a water quality violation in 2017. But that doesn’t include people living in private, unregulated districts.

What neutral and objective fact-checker deliberately seeks out only experts who double as advocates for the subject of a fact check?

PolitiFact California's fact check successfully obscures the fact that drinking water standards are arbitrary. They are arbitrary in that those setting the standards are weighing costs and benefits. There is no set point at which contaminants suddenly turn harmful.

See, for example, the World Health Organization's statement about its standard for poisonous chemical arsenic:

The current recommended limit of arsenic in drinking-water is 10 μg/L, although this guideline value is designated as provisional because of practical difficulties in removing arsenic from drinking-water. Every effort should therefore be made to keep concentrations as low as reasonably possible and below the guideline value when resources are available.

The case is the same with other contaminants, including those yet to be named by regulators. There is no objective line of demarcation between "clean water" and "unclean water." At best there's a widely-accepted standard. PolitiFact California only mentions state standards in its fact check (the word "federal" does not appear) while citing reports that refer to both state and federal standards.

There's a clear solution to this problem. Politicians, if you're tempted to talk about how many do not have access to water meeting a given standard, cite the standard by name. Fact-checkers, if you fact-check claims about water quality that avoid mentioning specific regulatory standards and instead use the slippery term "clean water," realize that you're fact-checking an opinion.

PolitiFact California let slip a wonderful opportunity to educate its readers about water quality standards and what they mean in real life.


Afters: 

PolitiFact California describes environmental justice advocate London as "a UC Davis professor who’s written about contaminated drinking water."

Did PolitiFact California not know London advocates for "environmental justice" or did it deliberately hide that fact from its readers?

PolitiFact editor: Principles developed "through sheer repetition"

PolitiFact editor Angie Drobnic Holan this week published her ruminations on PolitiFact's first 10 years of fact-checking.

Her section on the development of PolitiFact's principles drew our attention (bold emphasis added):

We also have made big strides in improving methodology, the system we use for researching, writing and editing thousands of fact-checks, more than 13,000 and counting at PolitiFact.com.

Through sheer repetition, we’ve developed principles and checklists for fact-checking. PolitiFact’s Principles of the Truth-O-Meter describes in detail our approach to ensuring fairness and thoroughness. Our checklist includes contacting the person we’re fact-checking, searching fact-check archives, doing Google and database searches, consulting experts and authors, and then asking ourselves one more time what we’re missing.

The line to which we added bold emphasis doesn't really make any sense. One develops principles and checklists by experience and adaptation, not by "sheer repetition." Sheer repetition results in repeating exactly the procedures one started out with.

PolitiFact's definitions for its "Truth-O-Meter" ratings appear on the earliest Internet Archive page we could load: September 21, 2007, featuring the original definition of "Half True" that PolitiFact not-so-smoothly dumped around 2011. So the definitions do not appear to have resulted from "sheer repetition."

The likely truth is that PolitiFact developed an original set of principles based on what probably felt like careful consideration at the time. And as the organization encountered difficulties it tweaked its process.

Does the contemporary process count as "big strides" in improving PolitiFact's methodology?

We're not really seeing it.

When PolitiFact won its 2008 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, one of the stories among the 13 submitted was a "Mostly True" rating for Barack Obama's claim that his uncle had helped liberate Auschwitz. Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet army. Mr. Obama's uncle was not part of the Soviet army. A false claim received a "Mostly True" rating.

This week, PolitiFact California issued a "Mostly True" rating for the claim a National Academy of Sciences study found undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. If PolitiFact had looked at the claim in terms of raw numbers, it would likely prove true. Native-born Americans, after all, substantially outnumber undocumented immigrants. Such a comparison means very little, of course.

PolitiFact California simply overlooked the fact that the study looked at immigrants generally, not undocumented immigrants. We wish we were kidding. We are not kidding:

We started by checking out the 2015 National Academy of Sciences study Villaraigosa cited. It found: "Immigrants are in fact much less likely to commit crime than natives, and the presence of large numbers of immigrants seems to lower crime rates." The study added that "This disparity also holds for young men most likely to be undocumented immigrants: Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men.

While the latter half of the paragraph hints at data specific to undocumented immigrants, we should note two important facts. First, measuring crime rates for Guatemalan immigrants in general serves as a poor method for gauging the criminality of undocumented Guatemalan immigrants. The same goes for immigrants from other nations. Second, PolitiFact California presents this information as though it came from the NAS study. In fact, the NAS study was summarizing the findings of a different study.

Neither study reached conclusions specific to undocumented immigrants, for neither used data permitting such conclusions.

Yet PolitiFact California found the following statement "Mostly True" (bold emphasis added):

"But going after the undocumented is not a crime strategy, when you look at the fact that the National Academy of Sciences in, I think it was November of 2015, the undocumented immigrants commit less crimes than the native born. That’s just a fact."

False statement, "Mostly True" rating.

If PolitiFact has learned anything over the past 10 years, it is that it can largely get away with passing incompetent fact-checking and subjective ratings on to its loyal readers.

The ongoing stupidity of PolitiFact California

PolitiFact on the whole stinks at fact-checking, but PolitiFact California is special. We don't use the word "stupid" lightly, but PolitiFact California has pried it from our lips multiple times already over its comparatively short lifespan.

PolitiFact's latest affront to reason comes from the following PolitiFact California (@CAPolitiFact) tweet:

Odds of fatal terror attack in U.S. by a refugee? 3.6 billion to 1. Our 2nd most popular fact-check (so far) of 2017 https://t.co/vZCUrauEZo pic.twitter.com/1yEOftynzp

— PolitiFactCalifornia (@CAPolitiFact) July 21, 2017

The original fact check was stupid enough, but PolitiFact California's tweet twists that train wreck into an unrecognizable heap of metal.

• The fact check discusses the (per year) odds of falling victim to a fatal terror attack committed by a refugee.
• The tweet trumpets the (per year) odds of a fatal attack occurring.

The different claims require totally different calculations, and the fact that the tweet confused one claim for the other helps show how stupid it was to take the original fact-checked claim seriously in the first place.

The original claim said "The chances of being killed by a refugee committing a terrorist act is 1 in 3.6 billion." PolitiFact forgave the speaker for omitting "American" and "per year." Whatever.

But using the same data used to justify that claim, the per year chances of a fatal attack on an American (national risk, not personal) by a refugee occurring is 1 in 13.3. That figure comes from taking number of fatal attacks by refugees (3) and dividing by the number of years (40) covered by the data. Population numbers do not figure in the second calculation, unlike the first.

That outcome does a great deal to show the silliness of the original claim, which a responsible fact checker would have pointed out by giving more emphasis to the sensible expert from the Center on Immigration Studies:

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stricter immigration policies, said the "one in 3.6 billion" statistic from the Cato study includes too many qualifiers. Notably, he said, it excludes terrorist attacks by refugees that did not kill anyone and those "we’ll never know about" foiled by law enforcement.

"It’s not that it’s wrong," Krikorian said of the Cato study, but its author "is doing everything he can to shrink the problem."

Krikorian stated the essence of what the fact check should have found if PolitiFact California wasn't stupid.



Correction July 21, 2017: Fixed typo where "bit" was substituted for "but" in the opening paragraph.
Clarification July 21, 2017: Added "(national risk, not personal)" to the eighth paragraph to enhance the clarity of the argument

PolitiFact California: Watching Democrats like a hawk

Is PolitiFact California's Chris Nichols the worst fact checker of all time? His body of evidence continues to grow, thanks to this port-tilted gem from July 7, 2017 (bold emphasis added):

We started with a bold claim by Sen. Harris that the GOP plan "effectively will end Medicaid."

Harris said she based that claim on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. It projects the Senate bill would cut $772 billion dollars in funding to Medicaid over 10 years. But the CBO score didn’t predict the wholesale demise of Medicaid. Rather, it estimated that the program would operate at a significantly lower budget than if President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) were to remain in place.

Yearly federal spending on Medicaid would decrease about 26 percent by 2026 as a result of cuts to the program, according to the CBO analysis. At the request of Senate Democrats, the CBO made another somewhat more tentative estimate that Medicaid spending could be cut 35 percent in two decades.

Harris’ statement could be construed as saying Medicaid, as it now exists, would essentially end.

You think?

How else could it be construed, Chris Nichols? Inquiring minds want to know!

PolitiFact California declined to pass judgment on the California Democrats who made the claim about the effective end of Medicaid.



Afters:

"Wouldn't end the program for good"? So the cuts just temporarily end the program?

Or have we misconstrued Nichols' meaning?

Rorschach context

It seems as though the liberal bloggers (aka "mainstream fact checkers") at PolitiFact treat context like a sort of Rorschach inkblot, to interpret as they see fit.

What evidence prompts these unkind words? The evidence runs throughout PolitiFact's history, but two recent fact-checks inspired the imagery.

The PolitiFact Florida Lens

In our previous post, we pointed out the preposterous "Mostly True" rating PolitiFact Florida gifted on a Florida Democrat who equated the raw gender wage gap with the gender wage gap caused by sex discrimination. The fact checkers did not interpret words uttered in context, "simply because she isn't a man," as an argument that the raw wage gap was entirely the result of gender discrimination. Perhaps it wasn't specific enough, like saying the difference in pay occurred despite doing the same work ("Mostly False")?

Whatever the case, PolitiFact opted not to accept a crystal clear clue that it was checking a claim that mirrored one it had previously rated "Mostly False" and rated the similar claim "Mostly True."

The PolitiFact California Lens

A recent fact check from PolitiFact California makes for a jarring contrast with the PolitiFact Florida item.

California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted that Republican Jason Chaffetz had treated (07-12-2018) compared the cost of an iPhone to the cost of health care "as if the 2 are the same." Newsom was making the point that health care costs more than an iPhone, so saying the two are the same misses the mark by a California mile.

But did Chaffetz say the costs are the same?

First let's look at how the PolitiFact California lens processed the evidence, then we'll put that evidence together with some surrounding context.

PolitiFact California:

We also examined Newsom’s final claim that Chaffetz had compared the iPhone and health care costs "as if they are the same."

Chaffetz’ comments, particularly his phrase "Americans have choices. And they’ve got to make a choice," leave the impression that obtaining health care is as simple as sacrificing the purchase of a smartphone.

It's worth noting at the outset that PolitiFact California's key evidence doesn't mention the iPhone and does not even imply any type of cost comparison. The only way to adduce Chaffetz's quotation as evidence of a price comparison would have to come from the context of Chaffetz's remarks. And a fact-checker ought to explain to readers how that works, unless the fact checker can count on his audience sharing his ideological bias.

Chaffetz (as quoted at length in the PolitiFact California fact check; bold emphasis added):

"Well we're getting rid of the individual mandate. We're getting rid of those things that people said they don't want. And you know what? Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so, maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest it in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions for themselves."

Chaffetz in no way offers anything approaching a clear suggestion that the cost of an iPhone equals the cost of health care or health insurance. His words about people having choices come right after he says the health care bill would eliminate the individual mandate. After that comes the mention of an iPhone costing "hundreds of dollars" that one might instead invest in health care. In context, the statement is just one example of a great number of choices one might make about paying for health care.

The PolitiFact California lens (like magic!) turns Chaffetz's words conveniently into what is needed to say the Democrat said something "Mostly True."

It's the bias, stupid.

We have PolitiFact Florida ignoring clear context to give a Democrat a more favorable rating than she deserves. We have PolitiFact California finding clear evidence from the context where none exists to give a Democrat a more favorable rating than he deserves.

Point out the absurdity to PolitiFact (as we did for the PolitiFact Florida flub) and somebody from the Tampa Bay Times will read the critique and no changes to the article will result.
How are they able to repeatedly overlook problems like these?

The simplest explanation? Because they're biased. Biased to the left. Biased to trust their own work (despite the incongruity with other PolitiFact fact checks!). And Dunning-Kruger out the wazoo.


Clarification: March 27, 2017: Added link to the PolitiFact California fact check of Gavin Newsom.

PolitiFact California "fact": Undocumented immigrants count as Americans

The secret formula for finding PolitiFact mistakes: Just look at what fact PolitiFact is checking, try to imagine how a biased liberal would flub the fact check, then look to see if that mistake occurred.

PolitiFact California makes this technique work like magic. Case in point:

We wondered if PolitiFact California and Gov. Brown count undocumented immigrants as "Californians." We wondered if PolitiFact California would even concern itself over who counts as a "Californian."

The answer? No. And PolitiFact California made its mistake even more fundamental by putting a twist on what Gov. Brown claimed. This was the statement Brown made from his 2017 state of the state address:

This is California, the sixth most powerful economy in the world. One out of every eight Americans lives right here and 27 percent – almost eleven million – were born in a foreign land.

Brown did not say 27 percent of "Californians" are foreign-born. In context, he said 27 percent of the Americans (U.S citizens) in California are foreign born. If Brown had referred to "Californians," the dictionary would have given him some cover. A resident of California can qualify as a "Californian."

But Merriam-Webster provides no such cover for the definition of "American":

Only one of the four definitions fits the context of Brown's claim. That is definition No. 3.

The problem for Brown and PolitiFact California? Both relied on Census Bureau data. The Census Bureau counts citizens and non-citizens in its population survey. About 3 million of California's population  (Kaiser Family Foundation estimates about 5 million) do not hold American citizenship and do not count as "American" by definition No. 3. Subtract 3 million from the number PolitiFact California used as the number of Californians, and subtract 3 million from the number of foreign-born California residents, and the percentage of foreign-born Americans in California (definition No. 3) comes up as 22 percent, not 27 percent.

If the true number of undocumented Californians is 5 million then the percentage drops below 18 percent.

Gov. Brown's figure is off by at least 5 percentage points, representing a percentage error of almost 23 percent. And PolitiFact California found it completely true:

Gov. Jerry Brown claimed in his State of the State Address that 27 percent of Californians, almost 11 million, "were born in a foreign land."

A 2015 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau verifies that statistic. Additionally, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, which studies the state’s immigration and demographic patterns, confirmed the census report is the best authority on California’s foreign born population.

We rate Brown's claim True.

---

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

To us, this looks like a classic case of a journalist's liberal bias damping proper skepticism. This type of mistake was predictable. We predicted it. And PolitiFact California delivered it.

Not a fact checker's argument, but PolitiFact went there

A few days ago we highlighted a gun-rights research group's criticism of a PolitiFact California fact check. The fact check found it "Mostly True" that over seven children per day fall victim to gun violence, even though that number includes suicides and "children" aged 18 and 19.

A dubious finding? Sure. But least PolitiFact California's fact check did not try use the rationale that might have made all victims of gun violence "children." But the PolitiFact video used to help publicize the fact check (narrated by PolitiFact California's Chris Nichols) went there:

How many teenagers in the background photo are 18 or over, we wonder?

Any parent will tell you that any child of theirs is a child, regardless of age. But that definition makes the modifier "children" useless in a claim about the effect on children from gun violence. "Children" under that broad definition includes all human beings with parents. That counts most, if not all, human beings as children.

Nichols' argument does not belong in a fact check. It belongs in a political ad designed around the appeal to emotion.

The only sensible operative definition of "children" here is humans not yet of age (18 years, in the United States). All persons under 18 are "children" by this definition. But not all teenagers are "children" by this definition.

To repeat the gist of the earlier assessment, the claim was misleading but PolitiFact covered for it with an equivocation fallacy. The equivocation fallacy from the video, featuring an even more outrageous equivocation fallacy, just makes PolitiFact marginally more farcical.




Edit: Added link to CPRC in first graph-Jeff 0735PST 1/12/2017

CPRC: "Is Politifact really the organization that should be fact checking Facebook on gun related facts?"

The Crime Prevention Research Center, on Dec. 29, 2016, published a PolitiFact critique that might well have made our top 11 if we had noticed it a few days sooner.

Though the title of the piece suggests a general questioning of PolitiFact's new role as one of Facebook's guardians of truth, the article mainly focuses on one fact check from PolitiFact California, rating "Mostly True" the claim that seven children die each day from gun violence.

The CPRC puts its strongest argument front and center:

Are 18 and 19 year olds “children”?

For 2013 through 2015 for ages 0 through 19 there were 7,838 firearm deaths.  If you exclude 18 and 19 year olds, the number firearm deaths for 2013 through 2015 is reduced by almost half to 4,047 firearm deaths.  Including people who are clearly adults drives the total number of deaths.

Even the Brady Campaign differentiates children from teenagers.  If you just look at those who aren’t teenagers, the number of firearm deaths declines to 692, which comes to 0.63 deaths per day.

This argument cuts PolitiFact California's fact check to the quick. Instead looking at "children" as something to question, the fact-checkers let it pass with a "he-said, she said" caveat (bold emphasis added):

These include all types of gun deaths from accidents to homicides to suicides. About 36 percent resulted from suicides.

Some might take issue with Speier lumping in 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds as children.

Gun deaths for these two ages accounted for nearly half of the 7,838 young people killed in the two-year period.

Yes, some might take issue with lumping 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds in as children, particularly when checking Merriam-Webster quickly reveals how the claim stretches the truth. The distortion maximizes the emotional appeal of protecting "children."

Merriam-Webster's definition No. 2:

a :  a young person especially between infancy and youth
b :  a childlike or childish person  
c :  a person not yet of age

"A person not yet of age" provides the broadest reasonable understanding of the claim PolitiFact California checked. In the United States, persons 18 and over qualify as "of age."

Taking persons over 18 out of the mix all by itself cuts the estimate nearly in half. Great job, PolitiFact California.

Visit CPRC for more, including the share of "gun violence" accounted for by suicide and justifiable homicide.

Does changing from "True" to "Half True" count as a correction? Clarification? Update? Anything?

The use and abuse of the PolitiMulligan

We've pointed out before PolitiFact's propensity to correct or update its stories on the sly, contrary to statements of journalistic ethics (including its own statement of principles) regarding transparency.

Thanks to PolitiFact, we have another example in the genre, where PolitiFact California, instead of announcing a correction or update, simply executed a do-over on one of its stories.

On July 28, 2016, PolitiFact ruled it "True" that vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence had advocated diverting federal money from AIDS care services to "conversion therapy." But Timothy P. Carney, writing for the right-leaning Washington Examiner, had published an item the day before explaining why the evidence used by Pence's critics did not wash.

I wrote about PolitiFact California's faulty fact check on July 29, 2016 at Zebra Fact Check.

On Dec. 2, 2016, PolitiFact partly reversed itself, publishing a new version of the fact check with a "Half True" rating replacing the original "True" rating.

To be sure, the new item features a lengthy editor's note explaining the reason for the new version of PolitiFact California's fact check. But readers should note that PolitiFact completely avoids any admission of error in its explanation:

EDITOR’S NOTE: On July 28, 2016, PolitiFact California rated as True a statement by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that Republican Indiana Governor and now Vice President-Elect Mike Pence "advocated diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy." We based that ruling on a statement Pence made in 2000 on his congressional campaign website, in which Pence says "Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." Subsequently, our readers and other fact-checking websites examined the claim and made some points that led us to reconsider the fact check. Readers pointed out that Pence never explicitly advocated for conversion therapy in his statement and that he may have been pushing for safer sex practices. Pence’s words are open to other interpretations: Gay and lesbian leaders, for example, say his statement continues to give the impression that he supported the controversial practice of conversion therapy when his words are viewed in context with his long opposition to LGBT rights. Taking all of this into account, we are changing our rating to Half True and providing this new analysis.

PolitiFact California’s practice is to consider new evidence and perspectives related to our fact checks, and to revise our ratings when warranted.

While we credit PolitiFact California for keeping an archived version of its first attempt available for readers, we find PolitiFact's approach a bit puzzling.

First of all, there are no "new evidence and perspectives" involved in this case. Carney's July 27 article ought to have pre-empted the flaw in PolitiFact California's original July 28 fact check, and Zebra Fact Check highlighted the problem again two days later: A fact checker needs to account for the difference in wording between "changing sexual behavior" and "changing sexual preference." Also noted was PolitiFact California's failure to explain the immediate context of the smoking gun quotation it used to convict Pence: The Ryan White Care Act.

PolitiFact California made two major mistakes in its fact-checking. First, it failed to offer due attention to the wording of Pence's statement. Second, it failed to consider the context.

The two major errors resulted in no admission of error. And PolitiFact California's do-over fails to even show up on PolitiFact's list of stories that were updated or corrected.

As for the new "Half True" rating? If "changing their sexual behavior" in the context of the Ryan White Care Act is open to interpretation as "changing their sexual orientation," then we claim as our privilege the interpretation of "Half True" as "False."

In other words, PolitiFact California, creative interpretation is no substitute for facts.


Afters

So apparently it is an update. Just not the type of update that PolitiFact includes on its "Corrections and Updates" page.

Hoystory: "PolitiFact California is Stupid ..."

Reformed California journalist Matthew Hoy chimes in agreeing with our "Is PolitiFact California stupid?" post before sharing his experience with PolitiFact that expands on the point.

Hoy notes that PolitiFact California is stupid "…and dishonest. And not transparent. And thin-skinned."

It's another account of PolitiFact resisting correction and hiding or downplaying evidence of its misdeeds. Hoy was trying to hold PolitiFact to account for its support of a false claim spread by Democrat Gavin Newsom. Newsom tweeted that it's easier to buy a gun in California than a Happy Meal. PolitiFact retweeted it. Hoy wrote about it.

Read both of Hoy's posts to get a picture of how the top-flight journalists at PolitiFact take the low road.


Correction Aug. 23, 2016: Our title omitted mention of "California," amounting to a misquote of the title of Hoy's article. We apologize for the mistake.

PolitiFact's Subtle Smears against Skepticism

In an earlier post we covered PolitiFact California's false conclusion that Mike Pence "denied evolution." We updated that post to note and condemn the fact checkers' downgrading of that rating to "Half True," since having no evidence that Pence denied evolution does not make it half true that Pence denied evolution.

There remains a problematic part of PolitiFact California's fact check that we haven't emphasized, that being the illogical inference that skepticism in other areas of science helps support the inference that Pence rejects evolution.

I had flagged a sentence in PolitiFact California writer Chris Nichols' original rating for commentary, but it's since been scrubbed from the new "Half True" version:

Nichols reasoning is flawed. It is perfectly consistent for a person to be skeptical of the efficacy of efforts to combat climate change while simultaneously accepting the scientific realities of climate change. To the contrary, blindly accepting said measures without skepticism is by definition unscientific.

That line has been deleted in the new version of the article, but it was replaced with an example that is similarly flawed:

Being ambiguous about supporting federal funding for stem cell research is not evidence that one denies the science behind stem cell research. There are moral, political, and philosophical reasons for opposing such things that have nothing to do with science. But for PolitiFact writer Nichols it appears to be axiomatic that funding for these things is something the government should do. It doesn't occur to Nichols that there's reasons for Pence's skepticism beyond being a Bible-thumping yokel.

There is no "have-it-both-ways" about it. Pence's position on federal funding for stem cell research has nothing to do with Pence's position on evolution. The paragraph serves no purpose in the fact check other than to possibly paint Pence as the liberal caricature of a science-hating Jesus freak.

What reporting in Nichols two versions of this fact check qualifies it as an objective fact check as opposed to opinionated commentary? 

Bryan adds:

We can see PolitiFact's zeal for climate change action through its actions in dropping its burden of proof criterion for a 2014 fact check of California Governor Jerry Brown. Brown said virtually no Republican in Congress accepts climate change science. PolitiFact found only a few Republicans who explicitly accepted it and more-or-less assumed that the rest do not accept it. Brown received an absurdly generous "Mostly True" rating.

It's illogical. It's biased. It's typical PolitiFact.

Bryan adds again:

PolitiFact also screwed up the context of the second quotation Jeff used. Pence was not replying to a question about his support for federal funding of stem cell research. Chris Matthews had been asking Pence about evolution and education, then added the issues of climate change and stem cell research. Pence answered how he thought science issues should be taught in school.

PolitiFact California makes Pence look like a dope for not really answering the question about funding stem cell research. If there was any such question it was swallowed by crosstalk as Pence answered Matthews' earlier question of whether he believed in teaching evolution or creationism in schools. PolitiFact California misrepresented the context.

The real story in the exchange is how Matthews doesn't mention that he's talking about embryonic stem cell research. Pence corrects him on that point. PolitiFact repeats Matthews' error by not distinguishing ordinary stem cell research (which Republicans support) with embryonic stem cell research, which many Republicans (and some Democrats) oppose on moral grounds.


Correction Aug. 4, 2016: In the first paragraph of "Bryan adds again," added "and stem cell research to complete the intended sentence and make the plural "issues" correct.

Zebra Fact Check: "Conversion therapy, Mike Pence and PolitiFact California"

Alternate title: Is PolitiFact California stupid II 

Very shortly after publishing "Is PolitiFact California stupid: Mike Pence and the mythical denial of evolution," we ran across another nonsensical fact-checking attempt from PolitiFact California. I gave it fact check treatment at Zebra Fact Check.

This time PolitiFact California looked at a statement from California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom said Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence wanted to divert tax money to conversion therapy. PolitiFact said the claim was "True."

But where was the evidence? PolitiFact tried to rely on this part of Pence's campaign website from his 2000 run for the House of Representatives:

• Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.

Is the problem obvious? It should be:

PolitiFact California performed this part of the fact check adequately, establishing a definition early in its fact check:

Conversion therapy is a controversial practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight.

PolitiFact’s definition clarifies the key issue for this fact check: If “conversion therapy” seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation, does it count as “conversion therapy” to seek to change a person’s sexual behavior?

It's worth noting that the Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney saw the problem before PolitiFact California published its fact check. Not that PolitiFact California would notice.

In context, Pence was talking about government money distributed to organizations providing care for HIV+ persons. Pence's line about directing resources to organizations helping people who want to change their sexual behavior likely serves as a counterpoint to his preceding line: Pence was making a contrast to organizations that encourage risky sexual behavior.

PolitiFact left out the context of the Ryan White Care Act.

And PolitiFact took "sexual behavior" to mean "sexual orientation" without explanation.

It's another fact-checking train-wreck for PolitiFact California. Visit Zebra Fact Check for more details.

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

Hoystory: "Abetting Gavin Newsom's Big Lie"

Reformed journalist Matthew Hoy today delivered an exquisite knockout to PolitiFact California over its gun-related fact checking.

California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and an associated gun-control advocacy group, Safety For All, claimed that gun dealers outnumber McDonald's in California. PolitiFact California rated that "True." Hoy covers the problems with that rating (which we also noted), and looks at how PolitiFact has since ignored Newsom's triumphant tweet saying that it's easier to buy a gun in California than it is to buy a Happy Meal.

Hoy notes that PolitiFact seems unconcerned over the leftward shove Newsom gives its already left-leaning reporting:

I wanted to see if Politifact would do anything about Newsom’s tweet. After all, it’s their reporting that’s being misused.

And a week later? Nothing new from Politifact on the topic. I emailed the reporter on the original fact check and the editor Tuesday evening. As of press time I had not received a response to my query of whether they would be fact-checking Newsom’s tweet.

Hoy's experience tracks with mine when I tried to get PolitiFact Missouri to fix a terminally flawed fact check. The fact checkers don't seem all that interested in the facts sometimes.

It's good use of your time to visit Hoystory and read his whole post.

PolitiFact California: Surprise, our gun-related fact check leans left

We carry little respect for PolitiFact in part because PolitiFact falls into bias traps that professional journalists ought to easily avoid.

One classic example of that genre comes from PolitiFact's treatment of illustrated numbers comparisons. It makes sense to PolitiFact to compare the frequency of voter fraud to shark attack. But comparing the frequency of gun crimes by concealed-carry permit holders to the frequency of alligator attacks doesn't make sense because gun crimes and alligator attacks are so different from each other.

Got it?

Predictably, PolitiFact's treatment of the former case proved a benefit to liberalism. PolitiFact's treatment of the latter case unfairly harmed conservatism.

On July 19, 2016, PolitiFact California approved the comparison of the number of licensed gun dealers to the number of McDonald's restaurants.

Of course the fact check contains no discussion at all whether McDonald's restaurants are similar enough to gun dealers to justify the comparison. And we're okay with that, aside from the inconsistency it shows from PolitiFact, because sometimes a numbers comparison is just that. One may compare the number of ants at a picnic to the number of stars in the galaxy without needing to show another similarity between ants and stars.

PolitiFact California went the extra mile for liberalism on this fact check, however.

PolitiFact Georgia rated a similar claim in 2013 as Mostly True. A civil rights activist said: "There are twice as many gun shops as McDonald’s in the United States." Our California claim deals with licenses in this state only, and not necessarily brick-and-mortar gun shops.

Above, PolitiFact California starts to make a mockery of PolitiFact's principled assurance that "words matter."

The claim was that licensed gun dealers more than double the number of McDonald's restaurants. Counting those who have licenses to deal guns but who do not sell guns is like adding closed or re-purposed McDonald's locations to the total number of McDonald's restaurants. And the distinction matters in this case:

The ATF keeps a monthly log on its website of how many dealers and pawnbrokers are licensed to sell guns in each state.

This month’s tally shows 2,315 dealers and pawnbrokers licensed to sell guns in California. That’s a shade less, 15 in fact, than twice as many McDonald’s.

PolitiFact's fact-finding found the claim from the gun control group "Safety For All" was not quite true using those numbers. So Safety for All pointed out that adding in the number of licenses not necessarily connected to a gun seller would provide the numbers needed to make the claim true.

PolitiFact California was fine with that approach and rated the claim "True."

The problem? That approach fails to jibe with the spirit of the comparison. Safety For All was trying to emphasize that licensed vendors from whom one might buy a gun more than double the number of McDonald's restaurants. Would the comparison work if half the licensed gun dealers did not sell guns? Of course not. Having a license to sell a gun does not necessarily make one a "gun seller" in the sense implied by the Safety For All claim.

It is not appropriate to shoehorn in persons licensed to sell guns who do not ordinarily act as gun sellers.

One could go further and nitpick the comparison to death (example here). We will stick with the point that a competent and neutral fact-checker does not illegitimately maximize a number to the benefit a political point of view. We expect that type of behavior from biased fact checkers.

Update: Afters

PolitiFact California went the extra-extra mile by working up a meme-worthy graphic to promote Safety For All's not-quite-true factoid:

Update July 22, 2016: Added link to PolitiFact California fact check

PolitiFact is California dreamin'

Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute helpfully drew our attention to a recent PolitiFact Florida item showing PolitiFact's inconsistency. PolitiFact Florida fixed the "Mostly False" label on Enterprise Florida's claim that California's minimum wage law would cost that state 700,000 jobs.

What's wrong with PolitiFact Florida's verdict?

PolitiFact justified its ruling by claiming the ad suggested that the 700,000 lost jobs would mean 700,000 fewer California jobs than when the hike went into effect:

A radio ad by Enterprise Florida said, "Seven hundred thousand. That’s how many California jobs will be lost thanks to the politicians raising the minimum wage….Now Florida is adding 1 million jobs, not losing them."

This is misleading. The 700,000 figure refers to the number of jobs California could have added by 2026 if it didn’t increase the minimum wage, not a decline in net employment.

We don't think people would be misled by the ad. People would tend to understand the loss as compared to how the economy would perform without the hike.

Back in 2014, when PolitiFact Florida looked at Gov. Scott's claim that the Congressional Budget Office projected a 500,000 job loss from a federal minimum wage hike, the fact checkers had no trouble at all figuring out the 500,000 loss was from a projected baseline.

What's the difference in this case?

Enterprise Florida, an arm of Florida's state government, contrasted California's projected job loss with Florida's gain of 1 million jobs. The changes in the states' respective job numbers can't come from the same cause. Only California is giving its minimum wage a big hike.. So if Enterprise Florida was trying to directly compare the job figures the comparison is apples-to-oranges. But PolitiFact Florida's analysis overlooked the context the ad supplied (bold emphasis added):

"Seven hundred thousand. That’s how many California jobs will be lost thanks to the politicians raising the minimum wage," the ad says, as the Miami Herald reports. "Ready to leave California? Go to Florida instead — no state income tax, and Gov. Scott has cut regulations. Now Florida is adding 1 million jobs, not losing them."

PolitiFact Florida's fact check doesn't lift a finger to examine the effects of relaxed state regulations.

Incredibly, PolitiFact Florida ignores the tense and timing of the job gains Scott lauds ("Now Florida is adding") and insists on comparing future projections of raw job growth for California and Florida, as though California's size advantage doesn't make that an apples-to-oranges comparison.

We think Enterprise Florida muddles its message with its claim Florida is adding 1 million jobs. People hearing the ad likely lack the context needed to understand the message, which we suspect is the dubious idea that Scott's cutting of regulations accounts for Florida adding 1 million jobs.

But PolitiFact Florida oversteps its role as a fact checker by assuming Scott was talking about California losing 700,000 jobs while Florida would gain 1 million at the same time and in the same sense. The ad does not explicitly compare the two figures. And it provides context cluing listeners that the numbers are not directly comparable.

PolitiFact Florida's error, in detail

We'll illustrate PolitiFact's presumption with the classic illustration of ambiguity, courtesy of yourlogicalfallacyis.com.

Is it a chalice? Is it two people facing one another?

The problem with ambiguity is we don't know which it is. And the Enterprise Florida ad contains an ambiguity. Those hearing the ad do not know how they are supposed to compare California's loss of 700,000 jobs with Florida's gain of 1 million jobs. We pointed out contextual clues that might help listeners figure it out, but those clues do not entirely clean up the ambiguity.

PolitiFact's problem is its failure to acknowledge the ambiguity. PolitiFact has no doubt it is seeing two people facing one another, and evaluates the ad based on its own assumptions.

The ad should have received consideration as a chalice: California's 700,000 job loss represents a poor job climate caused by hiking the minimum wage while Florida's 1 million job gain represents an employment-friendly environment thanks to no state income tax and relaxed state regulations.

Conclusion

PolitiFact Florida succeeded in obscuring quite a bit of truth in Enterprise Florida's ad.

Update: Adding Insult to Injury

As we moved to finish our article pointing out PolitiFact Florida's unfair interpretation of Enterprise Florida's ad, PolitiFact California published its defense of California Governor Jerry Brown's reply to Enterprise Florida:

There’s a lot to unpack there. So we focused just on Brown’s statement about California adding twice as many jobs as Florida, and whether there was any context missing. It turns out California’s job picture is not really brighter than Florida’s, at least not during the period Brown described.

Why do we call it a "defense" instead of a "fact check"?

That's easy. The statement PolitiFact California examined was a classic bit of political deception: Say something true and imply that it means something false. For some politicians, typically liberals, PolitiFact will dutifully split the difference between the trivially true factoid and the false conclusion, ending up with a fairly respectable "Half True." Yes, PolitiFact California gave Brown a "Half True" rating for his claim.

Brown tried to make California's job picture look better than Florida's using a statistic that could not support his claim.

Was Brown's claim more true than Enterprise Florida's ad? We're not seeing it. But it's pretty easy to see that PolitiFact gave Brown more favorable treatment with its "Truth-O-Meter" ratings.


Note: This item was inadvertently published with a time backdated by hours--the scheduled date was wrong. We reverted the post to draft form, added this note, and scheduled it to publish at the originally planned time.

Debra J. Saunders: "PolitiFact or PolitiFable?"

The San Francisco Chonicle's conservative columnist Debra J. Saunders published a nice blasting of PolitiFact on May 17, 2016.

In "PolitiFact or PolitiFable?" Saunders notes that PolitiFact California gave Pat Buchanan a "Mostly False" rating for claiming half of California households, when in the home, speak a language other than English.

Saunders:

PolitiFact’s Chris Nelson did some checking and found out that — drum roll — what Buchanan said was pretty accurate. According to the U.S. Census 44 percent of Californians spoke a language other than English at home in 2014. Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, crunched the data and concluded 48 percent of Cali households spoke a language other than English at home.

So how did the statement get a “Mostly False” rating? While Nelson noted Buchanan was right on the numbers, he nonetheless concluded Buchanan “wrongly implies that half the state does not speak English.” That is so bogus.

We think Saunders makes a great point. It's not easy to see any such implication from Buchanan.

PolitiFact California:

We checked the second part of Buchanan’s statement, about the percentage of Californians who speak a foreign language at home.

It’s a claim that was close to correct on the numbers, but wrongly implies that half the state does not speak English.

PolitiFact California reasons speciously. If half of Californians did not speak English then it would not matter whether they are at home when they speak a language other than English. If people do not speak English then they do not speak English, regardless of location.

We give the last word to Saunders:

Note to PolitiFact: When you have to make up something you think someone implied, then you should get your facts straight.