PolitiLies at PolitiFact Wisconsin I (Updated: PolitiFact amends)

Back on May 15, 2017 we noticed a suspicious factoid in PolitiFact Wisconsin's fact check of congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) (bold emphasis added):

Grothman’s quick response: "Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion provider in the country."

He added that the group is an outspoken advocate for what he termed "controversial" services such as birth control.

The notion that birth control services count as controversial looked suspiciously like the result of a liberal press filter. Curious whether the context of Grothman's statement supported PolitiFact Wisconsin's telling, we had a look at the context (17:55 through 20:55).



The crosstalk made it a bit hard for us to follow the conversation, but a partial transcript from an article by Jen Hayden at the left-leaning Daily Kos seemed reasonably accurate to us. Note the site also features a trimmed video of the same exchange.

It looked to us as though Grothman mentioned the "controversial programs" without naming them, instead moving on to talk about why his constituents can do without Planned Parenthood's role in providing contraceptive services. Just before Grothman started talking about alternatives to Planned Parenthood's contraceptive services, an audience member called out asking Grothman for examples of the "controversial programs." That question may have led to an assumption that Grothman was  naming contraceptive services as an example of "controversial programs."

In short, we could not see any solid justification for PolitiFact Wisconsin's reporting. So we emailed PolitiFact Wisconsin (writer Dave Umhoefer and editor Greg Borowski) to ask whether its evidence was better than it appeared:

Upon reading your recent fact check of Republican Glen Grothman, I was curious about the line claiming Grothman called birth control a "controversial" service.

He added that the group is an outspoken advocate for what he termed "controversial" services such as birth control.

I watched the video and had trouble hearing the audio (I've found transcripts that seem pretty much correct, however). It sounded like Grothman mentioned Planned Parenthood's support for some controversial services, then went on to talk about the ease with which people might obtain birth control. Was there some particular part of event that you might transcribe in clear support of your summary?

From what I can tell, the context does not support your account. If people can easily obtain birth control without Planned Parenthood's help, how would that make the service "controversial"? It would make the service less necessary, not controversial, right?

I urge you to either make clear the portion of the event that supports your interpretation, or else alter the interpretation to square with the facts of the event. By that I mean not guessing what Grothman meant when he referred to "controversial programs." If Grothman did not make clear what he was talking about, your account should not suggest otherwise.

If you asked Grothman what he was talking about and he made clear he believes birth control is a controversial service, likewise make that clear to your readers.

The replies we received offered no evidence in support of PolitiFact Wisconsin's reporting. In fact, the reply we received on May 18 from Borowski suggested that Umhoefer had (belatedly?) reached out to Grothman's office for clarification:

Dave has reached out to Grothman's office. So, you;ll [sic] have to be patient.

By June 4, 2017 we had yet to receive any further message with evidence backing the claim from the article. We sent a reminder message that day that has likewise failed to draw a reply.

[Update June 8, 2017: PolitiFact Wisconsin editor Greg Borowski alerted us that the fact check of Grothman was updated. We have reproduced the PolitiFact Wisconsin "Editor's note" at the end of this post]

What does it mean?

It looks like PolitiFact Wisconsin did careless reporting on the Grothman story. The story very likely misrepresented Grothman's view of the "controversial programs" he spoke about.

Grothman's government website offers a more reliable account of what Grothman views as Planned Parenthood's "controversial" programs.

It appears PolitiFact Wisconsin is aware it published something as fact without adequate backing information, and intends to keep its flawed article as-is so long as it anticipates no significant consequences will follow.

Integrity.


Afters

Also see PolitiLies at PolitiFact Wisconsin II,  published the same day as this part.

Update June 8, 2017: PolitiFact removed "such as birth control" from its summary of Grothman's statement about "controversial services."  PolitiFact Wisconsin appended the following editor's note to the story:

(Editor's note, June 7, 2017: An earlier version of this item quoted Grothman as saying that Planned Parenthood is an outspoken advocate for "controversial" services such as birth control. A spokesperson for his office said on June 7, 2017 that the video, in which Grothman's voice is hard to hear at times, may have led people to that conclusion, but that Grothman does not believe birth control is a controversial service. The birth control quote had no bearing on the congressman’s statement about Planned Parenthood and its role in abortions, so the rating of True is unchanged.)

We are impressed by PolitiFact Wisconsin's ability to run a correction while offering the appearance that it committed no error. Saying the original item "quoted Grothman" gives the reader the impression that Grothman must have misspoke. But benevolent PolitiFact Wisconsin covered for Grothman's mistake after his office clarified what he meant to say.

It's really not a model of transparency, and offers Grothman no apology for misrepresenting his views.

We stick with our assessment that PolitiFact Wisconsin reported carelessly. And we suggest that PolitiFact Wisconsin's error was the type of error that occurs when journalists think they know how conservatives think when in reality the journalists do not know how conservatives think (ideological bias).

On the bright side, the portion of the fact check that we criticized now reads as it should have read from the start. We credit PolitiFact Wisconsin for making that change. That fixes the main issue, for there's nothing wrong with having a bias if it doesn't show up in the reporting.

Of secondary importance, we judge the editor's note was subtly misleading and lacking in transparency.

We also note with sadness that the changes to PolitiFact Wisconsin's story do not count as either corrections or updates. We know this because PolitiFact Wisconsin added no "corrections and updates" tag to the story. Adding that tag would make a fact check appear on PolitiFact's page of stories that have been corrected or updated.



Correction June 9, 2017: Removed a redundant "because" from the final paragraph of the update.

PolitiFact Wisconsin serves up more baloney on Obama cutting the deficit in half

PolitiFact defines its "True" rating as "The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing."

Thus we greet with derisive laughter PolitiFact's Sept. 5, 2014 bestowal of a "True" rating on President Obama's declaration "We cut our deficits by more than half."

Curious about what "we" cut the deficits? PolitiFact Wisconsin is here to help:

"We" is "he": Obama (image from PolitiFact.com)

"We" is "he." Obama did it. Obama cut the national deficit in half. The statement is accurate and there's nothing significant missing. Right?

Well, no. It's a load of hooey that PolitiFact has consistently helped Obama sell.

Here are some insignificant things PolitiFact Wisconsin found:

1. "When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%."
2.  "'The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much,' Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well."
3.  "(Ellis) and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, it’s been halved from a skyscraping peak."

The second point is significant because TARP and other bailout spending was heavily focused on FY2009. As that money is repaid, it counts as lower spending ("negative spending"). The government has turned a profit on the TARP bailouts, so a fair bit of the "skyscraping peak" came right back to the government, making its later spending appear lower.

Here are some insignificant missing things PolitiFact Wisconsin didn't bother to mention:

1. PolitiFact claims it takes credit and blame into account. But Obama carries little (if any) personal responsibility for reducing the deficit by half.
2. Remember those obstructionist Republicans who block the Democrats' every attempt to pass jobs bills and keep critically important entitlement benefits flowing?
3. PolitiFact's expert, Goldwein, mentioned cuts in discretionary spending. Way to go, Obama! Oh, wait, that was largely a result of the sequestration that the president blames on Republicans.

So, yeah, the deficit was cut in half. But given the nature of the FY2009 deficit spike, cutting the deficit in half by the end of Obama's first term in office should have been a layup. It wasn't a layup because the economy stayed bad. Democrats would have continued spending investing in jobs and education if Republicans hadn't gained control of the House of Representatives in 2010.

Obama tries to take this set of circumstances largely beyond his control to fashion a feather for his own cap.

To PolitiFact Wisconsin, none of that is significant. What a joke.


Afters

For more on Obama's effect on the deficit and debt, see the following Zebra Fact Check articles:

FactCheck.org says federal spending has increased ‘far more slowly’ under Obama than under Bush

Is the federal deficit ‘falling at fastest rate in 60 years’?


Edit 11/08/2014 - Added link to original PFW article in second paragraph - Jeff

PolitiFact Wisconsin tries to scorch Scott Walker with its own burning britches

Though our research shows PolitiFact Wisconsin may have an axe to grind against the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, that doesn't necessarily mean PF Wisconsin isn't biased against Republicans.

On Aug. 4, 2014, PolitiFact Wisconsin published a hacktastic fact check of Governor Scott Walker.  This one certainly belongs in PolitiFact's crowded annals of fact checks too absurd or inept to qualify as fact checks.

Here's the statement from Walker, via Wisconsin Public Radio, that drew PF Wisconsin's attention:

"Mitt Romney did not run his campaign on the basis of arguing his experience in the business world was a reason to vote for him,” Walker said. “If he had, then I think it would be fair game to say then you need to look at all of his experience.”

PF Wisconsin contacted the Walker campaign about the statement.  Walker spokesperson Alleigh Marré said Walker was saying Romney didn't base his campaign all or mostly on his business experience.

While that reasoning may sound perfectly plausible to reasonable people, PolitiFact Wisconsin found reason to reject the Walker campaign's explanation:

But Walker did not couch his remark that way; he said Romney didn’t offer his business experience even as "a" reason to support him.

That’s a rewrite of history.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

We're supposing that Walker's statement looked like this through the distorted PolitiLens:

Unfortunately for PolitiFact Wisconsin, striking "run his campaign on the basis of" and changing "arguing" to "argue" represent a rewrite of history.  With the quotation intact, Marré's explanation makes good sense and must warrant strong consideration as the correct interpretation of Walker's statement.

PolitiFact Wisconsin's argument based on a telltale "a" doesn't pass the sniff test.

Despite the obvious reasonable explanation, PolitiFact Wisconsin insists that if Romney offered his business experience as a reason to vote for him, then that means Walker's claim is ridiculously false.

So PolitiFact Wisconsin produces the smoking gun:  Scott Walker introduced Romney at a campaign rally and praised his business experience!

We reviewed the video clip.  Yes, Walker praises Romney's business experience.  But he he goes on to say that the big reason to vote for Romney stems from is leadership as governor in a state dominated by Democrats.

In short, the supposed smoking gun, along with the rest of PolitiFact's evidence, dovetails extremely well with the explanation from the Walker campaign.

Here's Walker's speech introducing Romney.




We can't imagine what would possess PolitiFact Wisconsin stalwarts Dave Umhoefer and Greg Borowski to see this as a "Pants on Fire" falsehood from Walker.  Unless they're liberally biased, of course.  Then it makes sense.

A serious fact check would accept the reasonable explanation from the Romney (bww 8-9-14) Walker campaign and then test whether the Burke campaign's emphasis on her business career differs significantly from Romney's.  Maybe Walker's claim would check out, and maybe it wouldn't.  If only there was somebody out there to help us find the truth in politics.  But alas!

For what it's worth, Burke's campaign website does emphasize her private sector business experience quite a bit.

Right Wisconsin: "Kooyenga Rips PolitiFact Rating" (Updated)

State representative and C.P.A Dale Kooyenga responds via Right Wisconsin to PolitiFact's "Mostly False" rating of his statement that the legislature has used GAAP accounting principles for the past two years.

We're not professional accountants, but it looks like Kooyenga has a good case that PolitiFact Wisconsin's Dave Umhoefer gave his statement an unreasonable interpretation.

I have spoken to dozens of CPAs about your rating - they all agree your rating is simply wrong.  I would be happy to arrange a meeting with several CPAs from academia and the private sector to resolve the misinformation you printed in today's paper.  Ironically, your rating is simply wrong and I hope you are willing to revisit this matter. 

Read the whole thing, and then go get yourself some popcorn.

Update 9/27/2013

The MacIver Institute's MacIver News Service updates the story with a news video:

Wisconsin Reporter: "Politifact Wisconsin politispins a half truth on tax hikes"

Via Watchdog.org, the same folks who brought us Ohio Watchdog and Virginia Watchdog, we have a critique of PolitiFact Wisconsin from the Wisconsin Reporter:

MADISON — Here’s a riddle for you: When is a tax hike not an increase? Answer: When Politifact, the self-proclaimed political fact-checking enterprise, decides to take the question for a spin.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel version of the national Politifact brand did so when it rated half-true Gov. Scott Walker’s Jan. 4 tweet: “Thanks to Washington, nearly everyone will pay more in taxes in 2013. Somehow people think it’s just the wealthy. It’s not.”

Reporter Ryan Ekvall nails PolitiFact on a couple of its traditional problems.  First, it grades Gov. Walker  "Half True" for a true statement.  Second, the justification rests on Walker failing to provide sufficient context--on Twitter, of all places.  Yes, Twitter, the social media site that limits comments to 140 characters.

Ekvall's critique is solid, so give it a read.

We look forward to more from Watchdog.org's Wisconsin Reporter.