Did an Independent Study Find PolitiFact Is Not Biased?

An email alert from August 10, 2018 led us to a blaring headline from the International Fact-Checking Network:

Is PolitiFact biased? This content analysis says no

Though "content analysis" could mean the researchers looked at pretty much anything having to do with PolitiFact's content, we suspected the article was talking about an inventory of PolitiFact's word choices, looking for words associated with a political point of view. For example, "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" signal political points of view. Using those and similar terms may tip off readers regarding the politics those who produce the news.

PolitiFact Bias has never used the presence of such terms to support our argument that PolitiFact is biased. In fact, I (Bryan) tweeted out a brief judgment of the study on Twitter back on July 16, 2018:

The audit held that it found no substantial evidence of biased language at PolitiFact. We are not surprised, for historically PolitiFact's bias does not manifest itself in the particular choices of words,

— Bryan W. White (@ZebraFactCheck) July 16, 2018

We have two major problems with the the IFCN article at Poynter.org (by Daniel Funke).

First, it implies that the word-use inventory somehow negates the evidence of bias that PolitiFact's critics use that do not include the types of word choices the study was was designed to detect:

It’s a critique that PolitiFact has long been accustomed to hearing.

“PolitiFact is engaging in a great deal of selection bias,” The Weekly Standard wrote in 2011. “'Fact Checkers' Overwhelmingly Target Right-Wing Pols and Pundits” reads an April 2017 headline from NewsBusters, a site whose goal is to expose and combat “liberal media bias.” There’s even an entire blog dedicated to showing the ways in which PolitiFact is biased.

The fact-checking project, which Poynter owns, has rebuffed those accusations, pointing to its transparent methodology and funding (as well as its membership in the International Fact-Checking Network) as proof that it doesn’t have a political persuasion. And now, PolitiFact has an academic study to back it up.

The second paragraph mentions selection bias (taking the Weekly Standard quotation out of context) and other types of bias noted by PolitiFact Bias ("an entire blog dedicated to showing the ways in which PolitiFact is biased"--close enough, we suppose, thanks for linking us).

The third paragraph says PolitiFact has "rebuffed those accusations." We think "ignores those accusations" describes the situation more accurately.

The third paragraph goes on to mention PolitiFact's "transparent methodology" (true if you ignore the ambiguity and inconsistency) and transparent funding (yes, funded by some left-wing sources but PolitiFact Bias does not use that as an evidence of PolitiFact's bias). before claiming that PolitiFact "has an academic study to back it up."

"It"=PolitiFact's rebuffing of accusations it is biased????

That does not follow logically. To support PolitiFact's denials of the bias of which it is accused, the study would have to offer evidence countering the specific accusations. It doesn't do that.

Second, Funke's article suggests that the study shows a lack of bias. We see that idea in the title of Funke's piece as well as in the material from the third paragraph.

But that's not how science works. Even for the paper's specific area of study, it does not show that PolitiFact has no bias. At best it could show the word choices it tested offer no significant indication of bias.

The difference is not small, and Funke's article even includes a quotation from one of the study's authors emphasizing the point:

But in a follow-up email to Poynter, Noah Smith, one of the report’s co-authors, added a caveat to the findings.

“This could be because there's really nothing to find, or because our tools aren't powerful enough to find what's there,” he said.

So the co-author says maybe the study's tools were not powerful enough to find the bias that exists. Yet Funke sticks with the title "Is PolitiFact biased? This content analysis says no."

Is it too much to ask for the title to agree with a co-author's description of the meaning of the study?

The content analysis did not say "no." It said (we summarize) "not in terms of these biased language indicators."

Funke's article paints a very misleading picture of the content and meaning of the study. The study refutes none of the major critiques of PolitiFact of which we are aware.


Afters

PolitiFact's methodology, funding and verified IFCN signatory status is supposed to assure us it has no political point of view?

We'd be more impressed if PolitiFact staffers revealed their votes in presidential elections and more than a tiny percentage voted Republican more than once in the past 25 years.

It's anybody's guess why fact checkers do not reveal their voting records, right?


Correction Aug. 11, 2018: Altered headline to read "an Independent Study" instead of "a Peer-Reviewed Study"

PolitiFact fixes fact check on Syrian chemical weapons

When news reports recently appeared suggesting the Syrian government used chemical weapons, it presented a problem for PolitiFact. As noted by the Daily Caller, among others, PolitiFact said in 2014 it was "Mostly True" that 100 percent of Syrian chemical weapons were removed from that country.

If the Syrian government used chemical weapons, where did it get them? Was it a fresh batch produced after the Obama administration forged an agreement with Russia (seriously) to effect removal of the weapons?

Nobody really knows, just like nobody truly knew the weapons were gone when PolitiFact ruled it "Mostly True" that the weapons were "100 percent gone." (screen capture via the Internet Archive)

With public attention brought to its questionable ruling with the April 5, 2017 Daily Caller story, PolitiFact archived its original fact check and redirected the old URL to a new (also April 5, 2017) PolitiFact article: "Revisiting the Obama track record on Syria’s chemical weapons."

At least PolitiFact didn't make its old ruling simply vanish, but has PolitiFact acted in keeping with its commitment to the International Fact-Checking Network's statement of principles?

A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.

And what is PolitiFact's clear and transparent corrections policy? According to "The Principles of PolitiFact, PunditFact and the Truth-O-Meter" (bold emphasis added):

When we find we've made a mistake, we correct the mistake.

• 
  In the case of a factual error, an editor's note will be added and labeled "CORRECTION" explaining how the article has been changed.
  

• In the case of clarifications or updates, an editor's note will be added and labeled "UPDATE" explaining how the article has been changed.
  

• If the mistake is significant, we will reconvene the three-editor panel. If there is a new ruling, we will rewrite the item and put the correction at the top indicating how it's been changed.
  

Is the new article an update? In at least some sense it is. PolitiFact removed and archived the fact check thanks to questions about its accuracy. And the last sentence in the replacement article calls the article an "update":

In the days and weeks to come, we will learn more about the recent attacks, but in the interest of providing clear information, we have replaced the original fact-check with this update.

If the new article counts as an update, we think it ought to wear the "update" tag that would make it appear on PolitiFact's "Corrections and Updates" page, where it has yet to appear (archived version).

And we found no evidence that PolitiFact posted this article to its Facebook page. How are readers misled about the original fact check supposed to encounter the update, other than by searching for it?

Worse still, the new article does not even appear on the list for the "The Latest From PolitiFact." What's the excuse for that oversight?

We believe that if PolitiFact followed its corrections policy scrupulously, we would see better evidence that PolitiFact publicized its admission it had taken down its "Mostly True" rating of the claim of an agreement removing 100 percent of Syria's chemical weapons.

Can evidence like this stop PolitiFact from receiving "verified" status in keeping the IFCN fact checkers' code?

We doubt it.


Afters
It's worth mentioning that PolitiFact's updated article does not mention the old article until the third paragraph. The fact that PolitiFact pulled and archived that article waits for the fifth paragraph, nearly halfway through the update.

Since PolitiFact's archived version of the pulled article omits the editor's name, we make things easy for our readers by going to the Internet Archive for the name: Aaron Sharockman.

PolitiFact's "star chamber" of editors approving the "Mostly True" rating likely included Angie Drobnic Holan and Amy Hollyfield.