James Wigderson: "Looking for the 'Pants on Fire' rating"

James Wigderson of the Wigderson Library & Pub offered a critique of PolitiFact late last year that we failed to highlight (we'll excuse ourselves based on the huge amount of PolitiFact-related material published in December and January). 

Visit the Library & Pub for the details of the relatively gentle takedown; our takeaway was the final paragraph:

We also give the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s rating system a “pants on fire” rating for failing to have any standards for the public to use to judge whether the Journal Sentinel’s ratings have any meaning.

A most palpable hit.

One may pretend that some of the definitions PolitiFact gives for its ratings allow for objective categorization, but PolitiFact applies its ratings in a manner that seems to defy systematization.  Though some of PolitiFact's writers wisely make an attempt to correlate the fact check's findings to the appropriate definition, those attempts often (if not always) seem subjectively tinged.  The PFB team excepted, who even noticed when PolitiFact changed its definition of "Half True"?

By now so many have leveled the criticism that its novelty has faded well into the past, but it bears repeating:  PolitiFact's rating system is a flop.  It's not worthy of association with fact checking.  It is way too subjective for that.

James Wigderson: "We rate it a full flip for Politifact"

Wisconsin's James Wigderson serves up a potent shot at PolitiFact at his Library and Pub.  After noting PF's correction of a "Flip-O-Meter" piece offered no hint of the rationale for changing the rating, Wigderson makes a helpful recommendation:

Perhaps after reversing this Politifact review the newspaper will take the opportunity to look back at some of the other “Politifacts” to test their accuracy. Some of them, written about candidates on both sides of the aisle, were just awful examples of bias. (The Politifacts on Charlie Sykes and Jim Sullivan spring to mind.)

PolitiFact's penchant for stuffing failed stories down the memory hole represents a disturbing trend for an outfit that is already stingy with its transparency.  In the midst of 2010 PolitiFact revised a flawed story but kept the old version archived.  That seems better in terms of transparency.  Was it a change of policy or the same old chaos we're accustomed to seeing from PolitiFact?

Do stop by Wigderson's Library and Pub to savor the entire (brief) post.