Remember back when it was False to say Nixon was impeached?

I remember reading a story years back about a tire company that enterprisingly tried to drum up business by sending out a team to spread roofing nails on the local roads.

Turns out there's a version of that technique in PolitiFact's fact-checking tool box.

Nixon was Never Impeached

Back on June 13th, 2019 PolitiFact's PunditFact declared it "False" that Nixon was impeached. PunditFact said "Nixon was never officially impeached." We're not sure what would count as "unofficially impeached." We're pretty sure it's the same as saying Nixon was not impeached.

But that was way back in June. Over three months have passed. And it's now sufficiently true that Nixon was impeached so that PolitiFact can spread the idea on Twitter and write an impeachment PolitiSplainer that refers multiple times to the Nixon impeachment.

Nixon was Impeached

Twitter

Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Trump: We answer nine questions about impeachment. https://t.co/fzgdYA0iqE pic.twitter.com/MLh6cODpuN

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) October 12, 2019

Edit: (if embed isn't working use hotlink above)

Is Nixon a good example to include with Johnson and Clinton (let alone Trump) if Nixon wasn't impeached?

More than anything, the procedural details are derived from historical precedent, from the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in the 1860s to that of President Richard Nixon in the 1970s and President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Got it? The impeachment of President Nixon. Because Nixon was impeached, right?

Experts pointed to a variety of differences between the Trump impeachment process and those that went before.

The differences begin with the substance of the charges. All prior presidential impeachments have concerned domestic issues — the aftermath of the Civil War in Johnson’s case, the Watergate burglary and coverup under Nixon, and the Monica Lewinsky affair for Clinton.

Got it? Nixon was impeached over the Watergate burglary. Because Nixon was impeached, right?

The impeachments of both Nixon and Clinton did tend to curb legislative action by soaking up all the attention in Washington, historians say.

Obviously a fact-checker will not refer to "the impeachments of both Nixon and Clinton" if Nixon was not impeached. Therefore, Nixon was impeached. Right?

Some congressional Republicans have openly supported Trump’s assertion that the allegations against Trump are dubious. This contrasts with the Nixon impeachment, when "on both sides there was a pretty universal acknowledgement that the charges being investigated were very important and that it was necessary to get to the bottom of what happened," said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of the book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump."

Obviously a fact-checker will only draw a parallel to the Nixon impeachment if Nixon was impeached. Therefore Nixon was impeached. Right?

Trump is facing possible impeachment about a year before running for reelection. By contrast, both Nixon and Clinton had already won second terms when they were impeached. (Johnson was such an outcast within his own party that he would have been an extreme longshot to win renomination, historians say.)

Got it? Nixon and Clinton had already won second terms when they were impeached. Because Nixon was impeached, right?

On the eve of impeachment for both Nixon and Clinton, popular support for impeachment was weak — 38% for Nixon and 29% for Clinton, according to a recent Axios analysis. (There was no public opinion polling when Johnson was president.)

Got it? "On the eve of impeachment for both Nixon and Clinton," because a fact checker doesn't refer to the eve of the Nixon impeachment if there was no Nixon impeachment.

Is there a Christmas Eve if there's no Christmas?

That's six times PolitiFact referred to the Nixon impeachment in just one PolitiSplainer article. And about three months after PolitiFact's PunditFact said Nixon was not impeached.

Want a seventh? We've got a seventh:

During Nixon’s impeachment, "people counted on the media to serve as arbiters of truth," he said. "Obviously, we don’t have that now."

 "During Nixon's impeachment" directly implies Nixon was impeached. Seven.

We've been going in order, too.

(Nixon Wasn't Impeached)

But behold! Context at last!

The uncertainty about Senate process stems from the rarity of the process. Nixon resigned before the House could vote to send articles to the Senate, leaving just one precedent -- Clinton’s trial — in the past century and a half.

Admittedly, that's not PolitiFact saying "Nixon was not impeached." On the other hand, it's PolitiFact directly implying Nixon was not impeached. Blink and you might miss it amidst all the talk about the Nixon impeachment.

Can we get to eight after that bothersome bit of context?

Nixon was Impeached, Continued 

We can:

The impeachments of both Nixon and Clinton did tend to curb legislative action by soaking up all the attention in Washington, historians say.

We're curious which historians PolitiFact talked to who explicitly referred to the impeachment of Nixon. There are no quotations in the text of the PolitiSplainer that would support this claim about what historians say.

PolitiFact flirted with nine in the next paragraph. We're capping the count at eight.

In summary, we'll just say this: If there's a sense of "impeachment" that doesn't mean literally getting impeached by Congress and standing trial in the Senate, then Jimmy Kimmel is entitled to that understanding when he says Nixon was the last president to be impeached.

Contrary to PolitiFact's framing, Kimmel was wrong not because Nixon was not impeached. Kimmel was wrong because President William J. Clinton was the last president to be impeached. There was never any need for PunditFact to focus on the fact Nixon wasn't impeached, unless it was to avoid emphasis on Clinton.

This all works out very well for PolitiFact. PolitiFact does what it can to spread the misperception Nixon was impeached. And then it can draw clicks to its PunditFact fact check showing that claim false.

Just like dropping roofing nails on the road.

PolitiFact: The true half of Cokie Roberts' half truth is President Trump's half truth

Pity PolitiFact.

The liberal bloggers at PolitiFact may well see themselves as neutral and objective. If they see themselves that way, they are deluded.

Latest example:

PolitiFact's Aug. 3, 2019 fact check of President Trump finds he correctly said the homicide rate in Baltimore is higher than in some countries with a significant recent history of violence. But it wasn't fair of Trump to compare a city to a country for a variety of reasons, experts said.

So "Half True," PolitiFact said.

The problem?

Here at PolitiFact Bias we apparently remember what PolitiFact has done in the past better than PolitiFact remembers it. We remembered PolitiFact giving (liberal) pundit Cokie Roberts a "Half True" for butchering a comparison of the chance of being murdered in New York City compared to Honduras.

Roberts was way off on her numbers (to the point of being flatly false about them, we would say), but because she was right that the chance of getting murdered is greater in Honduras than in New York City, PolitiFact gave Roberts a "Half True" rating.

We think if Roberts' numbers are wrong (false) and her comparison is "Half True" because it isn't fair to compare a city to a country then Roberts seems to deserve a "Mostly False" rating.

That follows if PolitiFact judges Roberts by the same standard it applies to Mr. Trump.

But who are we kidding?

PolitiFact often fails to apply its standards consistently. Republicans and conservatives tend to receive the unfair harm from that inconsistency. Mr. Trump, thanks in part to his earned reputation for hyperbole and inaccuracy, tends to receive perhaps more unfair harm than anybody else.

It is understandable that fact checkers allow confirmation bias to influence their ratings of Mr. Trump.

It's also fundamentally unfair.

We think fact checkers should do better.

PolitiFact unfairly harms Joe Biden

On May 6, 2019, PolitiFact fact-checked a claim from Democratic Party presidential hopeful (and frontrunner) Joe Biden.

Biden said he was "always" labeled as one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress.

PolitiFact rated Biden's claim "False." Perhaps the rating is fair. But PolitiFact's would-be paraphrase of Biden's claim, below, treats Biden unfairly.

We think there's room for one to count as a "staunch liberal" without always counting as a one of the most liberal.

PolitiFact, for purposes of its headline, changed Biden's claim from one to the other. In terms of its messaging, PolitiFact offers the opinion that Biden does not count as a staunch liberal.

We think fact checks should stick to the facts and not make headlines out of their opinions. PolitiFact's opinion, trumpeted above its fact check, unfairly harmed Biden.


Note: We have always said that PolitiFact's problems go beyond left-leaning bias. PolitiFact represents fact-checking done poorly. The bad fact-checking unfairly harms right and left, with the right getting the worst of it.

PolitiFact misses obvious evidence in Broward recount fact check

On Nov. 13, 2018 PolitiFact's "PunditFact" brand issued a "Pants on Fire" rating to conservative Ken Blackwell for claiming Democrats and their allies were manufacturing voters in the Florida election recount.

The problem?

PolitiFact somehow overlooked obvious evidence reported in the mainstream media. The Tampa Bay Times, former owner of PolitiFact before it was transferred to the nonprofit Poynter Institute, published a version of the story:

Broward's elections supervisor accidentally mixed more than a dozen rejected ballots with nearly 200 valid ones, a circumstance that is unlikely to help Brenda Snipes push back against Republican allegations of incompetence.

The mistake — for which no one had a solution Friday night — was discovered after Snipes agreed to present 205 provisional ballots to the Broward County canvassing board for inspection. She had initially intended to handle the ballots administratively, but agreed to present them to the canvassing board after Republican attorneys objected.

The Times story says counting the 205 provisional ballots resulted in at least 20 illegal votes ending up in Broward County's vote totals.

The Times published its story on Nov. 10, 2018.

PolitiFact/PunditFact published its fact check on Nov. 13, 2018 (2:24 p.m. time stamp). The fact check contains no mention at all that Broward County included invalid votes in its vote totals.

Instead, PolitiFact reporter John Kruzel gives us the breezy assurance that neither he nor the state found evidence supporting Blackwell's charge.

Our ruling

Blackwell said, "Democrats and their allies (...) are manufacturing voters."

We found no evidence, nor has the state, to support this claim. Blackwell provided no evidence to support his statement.

We rate this Pants on Fire.

Inconceivable, you say?



via GIPHY

PolitiFact rewrites the Logan Act

We know that PolitiFact is non-partisan because it doesn't make mistakes like this.

A May 22, 2018 PolitiFact article (with no "Truth-O-Meter" rating) by John Kruzel looked at allegations of a secret meeting at a Paris restaurant between former secretary of state John Kerry and Iranian representatives.

PolitiFact judged that no solid evidence supported the allegations. More interestingly, PolitiFact framed its article as a defense of Kerry from charges he violated the Logan Act.

And that's where PolitiFact slipped up. Badly.

PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):

Trump and right-wing backers challenged Kerry’s actions as violating the 18th century Logan Act, which prevents U.S. citizens from privately meeting with a foreign government to sway its decisions on matters involving the United States.

PolitiFact implies that because the private restaurant meeting probably didn't take place therefore charges Kerry violated the Logan Act have no basis in fact.

The problem? The Logan Act doesn't forbid U.S. citizens from privately meeting with foreign governments to make policy agreements on behalf of the United States. The Logan act prevents private citizens from conducting U.S. foreign policy on behalf of the United States.

The Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Making PolitiFact's fact check even more hilarious (and slanted), the paragraph preceding PolitiFact's erroneous description of the Logan Act describes Kerry meeting with various foreign officials, including an Iranian, regarding the Iran deal (bold emphasis added):

In the weeks before Trump’s May 8 decision to exit the deal and re-impose sanctions on Iran, Kerry had worked frantically behind the scenes to preserve the deal he helped craft in 2015, according to the Boston Globe. Ahead of the U.S. withdrawal, Kerry, who was secretary of state under President Barack Obama, met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, courted European officials and made dozens of calls to members of Congress in hopes of salvaging the accord.

PolitiFact's apparent effort to exonerate Kerry with its framing of the story ends up convicting Kerry, with the Logan Act properly understood.

How does a non-partisan fact checker make such a huge mistake?

Don't ask us.


Update May 23, 2018: Updated link to Internet Archive version of the PolitiFact article. The first version of that URL was somehow defective.

PolitiFact's Jolly problem

PolitiFact hired David Jolly at some point in February, with the hire date depending on whether his job title was "reader representative" or "Republican guest columnist."

PolitiFact said the hire was intended to build trust in PolitiFact across party lines. We've viewed the experiment with justified skepticism. And Jolly's work so far as the "Republican guest columnist" only solidifies our skepticism.

Jolly's first guest column was published March 2, 2018. We noted that Jolly used that column to address a subject tied to his own advocacy of "common sense gun control." We doubted many PolitiSkeptical conservatives would hear their voices in that column. We judged that Jolly was using his position at PolitiFact to essentially write an op-ed about one of his pet political issues.

Jolly's March 7, 2018 column followed that pattern.

Instead of critiquing PolitiFact, Jolly used his column to attack the target of a PolitiFact fact check. The target of that fact check? President Donald Trump.

Jolly (bold emphasis added):

As the nation continues to debate which gun policies might provide for the safety of our schools and communities, PolitiFact demonstrated in a single column the critical importance fact-checkers serve in both informing the American public as well as holding politicians and advocates on both sides of the debate accountable for their assertions.

Jolly played his gun control theme song in the background again and again we ask: How does Jolly's approach to his columns build trust among conservatives skeptical of PolitiFact? Does he think that just having a Republican say something like "PolitiFact is right" will budge the needle of partisan mistrust?

We'll go out on a limb and predict that approach has a snowball's chance in hell of working.

Conservative mistrust in PolitiFact stems primarily from two factors:

• Conservatives see PolitiFact turning a blind eye to conservative arguments
• PolitiFact commonly makes errors of fact and logic damaging to conservatives

Jolly's column serves as an example of both problems, despite his willingness to identify as a Republican.

Jolly reinforces PolitiFact's left-leaning bias

Jolly lauded PolitiFact for rating "False" the claim that an armed civilian might have stopped the "Pulse" nightclub shooting in Orlando (bold emphasis added):

"You take Pulse nightclub," Trump said. "If you had one person in that room that could carry a gun and knew how to use it, it wouldn’t have happened, or certainly to the extent that it did."

The problem for both the president and his theory is that an armed officer and 15-year veteran of the Orlando Police Department, Adam Gruler, was actually working security at Pulse that fateful night, and indeed engaged the shooter directly with gunfire. Forty-nine people still lost their lives.

PolitiFact rightly rated as False the president's statement that an armed security guard could have saved those 49 victims.

The conservative would have read the PolitiFact fact check looking for evidence of fair treatment of the mainstream conservative point of view. That view is absent, and when Jolly fails to notice its absence and celebrates PolitiFact's fact check in spite of that, the conservative cannot take Jolly's columns any more seriously than the fact check in the first place.

The problem with the fact check

What's the problem with PolitiFact's fact check?

The fact check pretends that the armed guard working security in the Pulse parking lot counts as "one person in that room that could carry a gun and knew how to use it."

Is the Pulse parking lot inside the Pulse nightclub?

Shouldn't that make a difference for non-partisan fact checkers and GOP columnists alike?

Note PolitiFact's description of armed guard Anthony Gruler's involvement in the Pulse incident (bold emphasis added):

The Justice Department in 2017 released a nearly 200-page report detailing the Orlando police response to the shooting. Here’s the report’s account of Gruler’s initial confrontation with Mateen:

"Outside, in the Pulse parking lot, (Gruler), who was working extra duty at the club — to provide outside security and to provide assistance to security personnel inside the club if needed — heard the shots that were being fired; at 2:02:17 a.m., he broadcast over the radio, 'Shots fired, shots fired, shots fired,' and requested additional officers to respond.

"The detective told the assessment team that he immediately recognized that his Sig Sauer P226 9mm handgun was no match for the .223 caliber rifle being fired inside the club and moved to a position that afforded him more cover in the parking lot. Two patrons attempted to flee through an emergency exit on the south side of the club. When the detective saw the suspect shoot them, he fired at the suspect."

According to an Orlando Police Department report, additional officers arrived on the scene about a minute after Gruler’s call for backup was broadcast. A second backup officer arrived about a minute after that.

 PolitiFact's conclusion, sadly, serves as an adequate summary of its argument:

Talking about the Pulse nightclub shooting, Trump said, "If you had one person in that room that could carry a gun and knew how to use it, it wouldn’t have happened, or certainly to the extent that it did."

An armed, off-duty police officer in uniform was at the club during the shooting, and exchanged gunfire with the shooter, who managed to kill 49 people.

We rate this False.

Notice that PolitiFact says Gruler was "at the club," not "outside the club."

The "False" rating gets its premise from the fiction that Gruler was in the same room with Mateen while the latter was murdering club patrons. Jolly, PolitiFact's voice of the GOP, signs on with that falsehood.

In this case the deception comes from PolitiFact and Jolly. Not from Trump.

PolitiFact demonstrated nothing false in Trump's statement, yet pinned a "False" rating on his statement.

Jolly cheered PolitiFact's work, missing the key discrepancy in its fact check.

That's all kinds of wrong.

More "True But False" fact-checking from PolitiFact

PolitiFact has always had a tendency to skew its fact-checking in favor of liberals and Democrats. But with speak-from-the-hip President Trump in the White House, PolitiFact has let its true blue colors show like perhaps never before.

A Jan. 5, 2017 fact check from PolitiFact's John Kruzel rates two true statements from President Trump "False." Why would a fact checker rate two true statements "False"? That's a good question. And it's one that the fact check doesn't really answer. But it's worth fisking the fact check for whatever nods it makes toward justifying its conclusions.

Framing the fact check

 

President Trump tweeted that he had not authorized any White House access for Michael Wolff, the author of the book "Fire and Fury" and that he had not spoken to Wolff for the book.

Right off the bat, PolitiFact frames Trump's claim as a denial that Wolff had access to the White House. With the right evidence, PolitiFact might have a case interpreting Trump's statement that way. But pending that justification, PolitiFact leads with a red flag hinting that it is more interested in its own interpretation of Trump words than in the words Trump used.

If Trump had meant to indicate Wolff had no access at all to the White House, he could tweet that in under 140 characters.  Like so:

Wolff had Zero access to White House. I never spoke to him. Liar! Sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See? Under 90 characters, including the multiple exclamation points.

Most people understand that when a writer or speaker burdens potentially simple statements with more words the extra words are supposed to mean something. For example, if somebody says "I never spoke to Wolff for book" and not "I never spoke to Wolff" then it strongly hints that the speaker spoke to Wolff but not for the book.

Can PolitiFact explain away the importance of all those words Trump used?

Leading with the fact checker's opinion

From the first, we have said PolitiFact mixes its opinion in with its supposedly objective reporting. PolitiFact and Kruzel have opinion high in the mix in the introduction to the story (bold emphasis added):

The Trump administration has scrambled to control damaging headlines based on Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, which was rushed to shelves Jan. 5 over threats from President Donald Trump’s attorneys.

For his part, Trump sought to undermine Wolff’s credibility by calling into question the author’s access to the administration’s highest levels.

Is Kruzel an objective reporter or a prosecuting attorney telling the jury that the accused has a motive?

Kruzel dedicates his first to paragraphs to the creation of a narrative based on Trump's desire to attack Wolff's credibility. As we proceed, we should stay alert from cues Kruzel might offer the reader about Wolff's credibility. Will Kruzel allow any indication that Wolff deserves skepticism? Or perhaps present Wolff as credible by default?

Dissecting Trump's tweet or ignoring what it says?

Trump's tweet:

I authorized Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book. Full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don’t exist. Look at this guy’s past and watch what happens to him and Sloppy Steve!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2018

Kruzel comments:

We decided to dissect Trump’s tweet by sifting through what’s known about Wolff’s White House access. We can’t know everything that goes on behind the scenes, but even the public record shows that Trump’s statement is inaccurate.

This had better be good, given that the headline offers a skewed impression of Trump's tweet.

Kruzel defeats a straw man

PolitiFact and Kruzel deal first with the issue of White House access. Whereas Trump said he authorized no access for Wolff, PolitiFact creates a straw contradiction by pointing out some might believe Trump was saying Wolff had no access to the White House at all.

How we wish we were kidding (though this is by no means a first for PolitiFact):

Wolff’s access to the White House

Trump’s tweet could give the impression that Wolff was denied access to the White House entirely. But as Trump’s own press secretary has acknowledged, the author had more than a dozen interactions with administration officials at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What if instead of fact-checking people's false impressions fact checkers instead explained to people the correct impression? But that's not PolitiFact's way. PolitiFact dedicates its fact check to showing that misinterpreting the claim shows that Trump wasn't telling the truth.

Kruzel concludes the first section:

So, while it may be the case that Trump did not personally grant Wolff access, his own press secretary says the author had access to administration officials at the White House.

Our summary so far:

1. PolitiFact finds "it may be the case" that Trump did not authorize Wolff's access to the White House (as Trump said)
2. No indication from PolitiFact that Wolff should be regarded as anything other than reliable
3. Proof that the misinterpreted version of Trump's statement is false (straw man defeated)

Kruzel defeats another straw man

With the first straw man defeated, PolitiFact and Kruzel deal with the burning question of whether Trump spoke to Wolff at all.

Yes, you read that correctly. The fact check focuses on whether Trump spoke to Wolff, not on whether Trump spoke to Wolff "for book."

Did Wolff and Trump talk?

To the casual reader, Trump’s tweet could give the impression that he and Wolff never spoke — but that’s far from the case.

Never fear, casual reader! PolitiFact is here for you as it is for no other type of reader. And if PolitiFact has to create and destroy a straw man or two to keep from helping you improve your reading comprehension, then so be it.

Kruzel follows immediately with his conclusion (explaining after that the details behind the defeat of the straw man):

While it may be the case that Trump never talked to Wolff with the express understanding that their discussion would later be incorporated into a book, the two men certainly spoke, though the length and nature of their conversations is not entirely clear.

And we review and add to our summary:

1. PolitiFact finds "it may be the case" that Trump did not authorize Wolff's access to the White House (as Trump said)
2. Still no indication from PolitiFact that Wolff should be regarded as anything other than reliable
3. PolitiFact proves that the misinterpreted version of Trump's first claim is false (first straw man defeated)
4. PolitiFact finds "it may be the case" that Trump did not talk to Wolff for the book (as Trump said)
5. PolitiFact proves that the misinterpreted version of Trump's second claim is false (second straw man defeated)

Whatever one thinks of Trump, that's awful fact-checking

Trump made two claims that were apparently true according to PolitiFact's investigation, but because casual readers might think Trump meant something other than what he plainly said, PolitiFact rated the statements "False."


That approach to fact-checking could make virtually any statement false.

Is Wolff reliable? Who cares? PolitiFact is interested in Trump's supposed unreliability.

This PolitiFact fact check ought to serve as a classic example of what to avoid in fact-checking. Instead, PolitiFact's chief editor Angie Drobnic Holan edited the piece. And a PolitiFact "star chamber" of at least three editors reviewed the story and decided on the rating without seeing anything amiss with what they were doing.

Welcome to the "True but False" genre of fact-checking.

You can't trust these fact checkers.

PolitiFact and the principle of inconsistency

In October, six days apart, PolitiFact did fact checks on two parallel claims, each asserting the existence of a particular law. One, by U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore, was found "False." The other, by a Saturday Night Live cast member, was found "Mostly True."

Moore asserted that an act of Congress made it "against the law" to fail to stand for the playing of the national anthem. PolitiFact confirmed the existence of the law Moore referenced, but noted that it merely offered guidance on proper etiquette. It did not provide any punishment for improper etiquette.

SNL's Colin Jost said a Texas law made it illegal to own more than six dildos. PolitiFact confirmed a Texas law made owning more than six "obscene devices" illegal. PolitiFact found that a federal court had ruled that law unconstitutional in 2008.

Both laws exist. The one Moore cited carries no teeth because it describes proper etiquette, not a legal requirement backed by government police power. The one Jost cited lacks teeth because the Court voided it.

How did PolitiFact and PolitiFact Texas justify their respective rulings?

PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):

Moore said NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem is "against the law."

Moore's basis is that a law on the books describes patriotic etiquette during the national anthem. But his statement gives the false impression the law is binding, when in fact it’s merely guidance that carries no penalty. Additionally, legal experts told us the First Amendment protects the right to kneel during the national anthem.

We rate this False.

PolitiFact Texas (bold emphasis added):

Jost said: "There is a real law in Texas that says it’s illegal to own more than six dildos."

Such a cap on "obscene devices" has been state law since the 1970s though it’s worth clarifying that the law mostly hasn’t been enforced since federal appeals judges found it unconstitutional in 2008.

We rate the claim Mostly True.

From where we're sitting, the thing PolitiFact Texas found "worth clarifying" in its "Mostly True" rating of Jost closely resembles in principle one of the reasons PolitiFact gave for rating Moore's statement "False" (neither law is binding, but for different reasons). As for the other rationale backing the "False" rating, from where we're sitting Jost equaled Moore in giving the impression that the Texas law is binding today. But PolitiFact Texas did not penalize Jost for offering a misleading impression.

We call these rulings inconsistent.

Inconsistency is a bad look for fact checkers.


Update Oct. 23, 2017: We appreciate Tim Graham highlighting this post at Newsbusters.

Yet more sweet PolitiLies

Today, with a fresh executive order from President Donald Trump ending subsidies insurance companies had received from the Obama and Trump administrations, PolitiFact recycled a PolitiSplainer it published on July 31, 2017.

The story claimed to explain what it meant when Trump threatened to end an insurance company bailout:

We have no problem with the bulk of the story*, except for one glaring omission. PolitiFact writer John Kruzel somehow left out the fact that a court ruling found the payments to insurance companies were not authorized by the Affordable Care Act. The Court suspended its injunction to leave time for an appeal, but time ran out on the Obama administration and now any such appeal is up to the Trump administration.

Anyone want to hold their breath waiting for that to happen?

That makes the lead of Kruzel's story false (bold emphasis added):

President Donald Trump warned lawmakers he would cut off billions in federal funding that insurance companies receive through Obamacare if Congress fails to pass new health care legislation.

If the ACA legislation does not authorize the spending the insurance companies received, then the insurance companies do not receive their funding "through Obamacare."

How does a "nonpartisan" fact checker miss out on a key fact that is relatively common knowledge? And go beyond even that to misstate the fact of the matter?

Maybe PolitiFact is a liberal bubble?




*At the same time, we do not vouch for its accuracy

PolitiFact does racial profiling (Updated)

On Oct. 6, 2017 PolitiFact confirmed Newsweek's report that white men commit the majority of mass shootings (bold emphasis added):

As details about the Las Vegas shooter’s identity emerged, media outlets noted some of the characteristics fit neatly within a familiar profile of prior mass shooting perpetrators.

Newsweek, for instance, ran a story with the headline, "White men have committed more mass shootings than any other group." The article builds on this claim, stating that 54 percent of mass shootings carried out since 1982 were done so by white males.

The "Mostly True" rating awarded to this claim counts as extremely dunderheaded. PolitiFact even explains why in the text of the fact check, but skips its common practice of rating "meaningless statistics" harshly on the "Truth-O-Meter" even when reported accurately.

That, for example, is why Donald Trump received a "Half True" rating for correctly stating that the Hispanic poverty rate went up under the Obama administration. PolitiFact said the statistic meant little because the Hispanic poverty rate went down during the same span.

In this case also, the rate counts as the key statistic. But PolitiFact's numbers showed that whites were no more than proportionally represented in the statistics (bold emphasis added):

Newsweek's claim is literally accurate. But it's worth noting the imprecision of this data, and the percentage of mass shootings by white men is lower than their share of the male population, according to Mother Jones.

Newsweek, for its part, allows a liberal expert to expound on the racial resentment factors that might explain the white male penchant for shooting up the town. And Newsweek follows that with the admission that maybe the sheer abundance of white people might help explain the data (bold emphasis added):

The high number of white men committing mass shootings is also explained, at least in part, by the fact white people make up a majority of the U.S. population (63 percent) and men are more likely to commit violent crime in general: In the U.S., 98 percent of mass shootings and 90 percent of all murders are committed by men.

Newsflash: There's no need to look for special explanations for the high number of whites committing mass shootings unless they are committing more than their share. And they aren't, according to the numbers PolitiFact used.

How did a statement just as flawed as Trump's garner a "Mostly True" rating?

That one's not hard. We know the ratings are substantially (if not entirely) subjective and that PolitiFact staffers are like everybody else: They're biased.  And their bias trends left.

But this fact check we found particularly egregious because it helps inflame racial conflict, albeit illogically. And we find it hard to imagine that the folks at PolitiFact did not realize, before publishing, that the fact check would feed that illogical thinking.

Here's a smattering of commentary from the comments at PolitiFact's Facebook page. We won't offer up the names because our purpose is to shame PolitiFact, not the people PolitiFact helped mislead.

"Because they listen to news media outlets that tell them they will be minorities in 20 years and that immigrants are taking away their jobs and women are threatening to take away their masculinity through economic means via education and most of them are stupid enough to believe it."

"White males, directly or indirectly, are responsible for far more than we realize!! We need to own what we've done and are currently doing!!"

"When you factor in the native genocide attacks and racially driven attacks, of course. Leave those out and they still are."

"I'm white so I'm not proud of it and I'd rather not admit it, but yes, probably. We probably lead in serial killers too."

"Add in serial killers and it gets worse."

"It shows 54% of mass shooting are done by whites, that there is a great chance of possibility that the next one can follow the same pattern."

"The point is that people like to pass laws based on statistics. For instance, there is, in effect, a Muslim ban and that was based on the assumption that it would make America safer because, supposedly and erroneously, Arab Muslims are a danger. Facts like the ones posted here negate that logic and show the racist intentions and biases behind actions like the travel ban."

"testosterone.....white priviledge [sic].....dangerous outcome?"

"Yes. And most of them are the ones with all of the guns... The REPUBLICANS."

"The real terrorist threat to the U.S.: extreme right wing white males."

Thanks, PolitiFact, for helping to bring us the truth in politics. Or something.


Update Oct. 9, 2017: PolitiFact reposted its fact check to Facebook. We'll take the opportunity to supplement our selection of comments from people buying into the deception.

"it seems white men are more motivated to commit mass shootings the [sic] people of color so there you have it."

"The focus is the right-wing NRA narrative that implies either minorities or radical Islamic terrorists are the biggest threat to safety rather than angry/crazy white guys with guns."
"well thankfully if the trend continues [white majority shrinking?--ed.] that won't be the case and we can stop sending worthless thoughts and prayers all the time."
"the facts say that even after you adjust for the per capita rates white males still do far more then their fair share of the mass shootings. The "Mostly True" rating is only because there's some debate over what really qualifies as a mass shooting for statistical purposes. RTFA."

"Ban white men."

Maybe PolitiFact will post the article again soon so we can update with even more comments.

PolitiFact & Roy Moore: A smorgasbord of problems

When PolitiFact unpublished its Sept. 1, 2017 fact check of a claim attacking Alabama Republican Roy Moore, we had our red flag to look into the story. Taking down a published story itself runs against the current of journalistic ethics, so we decided to keep an eye on things to see what else might come of it.

We were rewarded with a smorgasbord of questionable actions by PolitiFact.

Publication and Unpublication

PolitiFact's Sept. 1, 2017 fact check found it "Mostly False" that Republican Roy Moore had taken $1 million from a charity he ran to supplement his pay as as Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of Alabama.

We have yet to read the original fact check, but we know the summary thanks to PolitiFact's Twitter confession issued later on Sept. 1, 2017:

We're pulling this fact-check on an attack on Roy Moore while we review new evidence. We will re-publish after our review. https://t.co/F2EvW8gkTX

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) September 1, 2017

We tweeted criticism of PolitiFact for not making an archived version of the fact check immediately available and for not providing an explanation for those who ended up looking for the story only to find a 404-page-not found-error.  We think readers should not have to rely on Twitter to know what is going on with the PolitiFact website.

John Kruzel takes tens of thousands of dollars from PolitiFact

(a brief lesson in misleading communications)

The way editors word a story's title, or even a subheading like the one above, makes a difference.

What business does John Kruzel have "taking" tens of thousands of dollars from PolitiFact? The answer is easy: Kruzel is an employee of PolitiFact, and PolitiFact pays Kruzel for his work. But we can make that perfectly ordinary and non-controversial relationship look suspicious with a subheading like the one above.

We have a parallel in the fact check of Roy Moore. Moore worked for the charity he ran and was paid for it. Note the title PolitiFact chose for its fact check:

Did Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore take $1 million from a charity he ran?

 "Mostly True." Hmmm.

Kruzel wrote the fact check we're discussing. He did not necessarily compose the title.

We think it's a bad idea for fact-checkers to engage in the same misleading modes of communication they ought to criticize and hold to account.

Semi-transparent Transparency

For an organization that advocates transparency, PolitiFact sure relishes its semi-transparency. On Sept. 5, 2017, PolitiFact published an explanation of its correction but rationed specifics (bold emphasis added in the second instance):

Correction: When we originally reported this fact-check on Sept. 1, we were unable to determine how the Senate Leadership Fund arrived at its figure of "over $1 million," and the group didn’t respond to our query. The evidence seemed to show a total of under $1 million for salary and other benefits. After publication, a spokesman for the group provided additional evidence showing Moore received compensation as a consultant and through an amended filing, bringing the total to more than $1 million. We have corrected our report, and we have changed the rating from Mostly False to Mostly True.

PolitiFact included a table in its fact check showing relevant information gleaned from tax documents. Two of the entries were marked as for consulting and as an amended filing, which we highlighted for our readers:

Combining the two totals gives us $177,500. Subtracting that figure from the total PolitiFact used in its corrected fact check, we end up with $853,375.

The Senate Leadership Fund PAC (Republican) was off by a measly 14.7 percent and got a "Mostly False" in PolitiFact's original fact check? PolitiFact often barely blinks over much larger errors than that.

Take a claim by Sen. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) from April 2017, for example. The fact check was published under the "PolitiFact Illinois" banner, but PolitiFact veterans Louis Jacobson and Angie Drobnic Holan did the writing and editing, respectively.

Schneider said that the solar industry accounts for 3 times the jobs from the entire coal mining industry. PolitiFact said the best data resulted in a solar having a 2.3 to 1 job advantage over coal, terming 2.3 "just short of three-to-one" and rating Schneider's claim "Mostly True."

Schneider's claim was off by over 7 percent even if we credit 2.5 as 3 by rounding up.

How could an error of under 15 percent have dropped the rating for the Senate Leadership Fund's claim all the way down to "Mostly False"?

We examine that issue next.

Compound Claim, Or Not?

PolitiFact recognizes in its statement of principles that sometimes claims have more than one part:

We sometimes rate compound statements that contain two or more factual assertions. In these cases, we rate the overall accuracy after looking at the individual pieces.

We note that if PolitiFact does not weight the individual pieces equally, we have yet another area where subjective judgment might color "Truth-O-Meter" ratings.

Perhaps this case qualifies as one of those subjectively skewed cases.

The ad attacking Moore looks like a clear compound claim. As PolitiFact puts it (bold emphasis added), "In addition to his compensation as a judge, "Roy Moore and his wife (paid themselves) over $1 million from a charity they ran."

PolitiFact found the first part of the claim flatly false (bold emphasis added):

He began to draw a salary from the foundation in 2005, two years after his dismissal from the bench, according to the foundation’s IRS filings. So the suggestion he drew the two salaries concurrently is wrong.

Without the damning double dipping, the attack ad is a classic deluxe nothingburger with nothingfries and a super-sized nothingsoda.

Moore was ousted as Chief Justice in the Alabama Supreme Court, where he could have expected a raise up to $196,183 per year by 2008. After that ouster Moore was paid a little over $1 million over a nine-year period, counting his wife's salary for one year, getting well under $150,000 per year on average. On what planet is that not a pay cut? With the facts exposed, the attack ad loses all coherence. Where is the "more" that serves as the theme of the ad?

We think the fact checkers lost track of the point of the ad somewhere along the line. If the ad was just about what Moore was paid for running his charity while not doing a different job at the same time, it's more neutral biography than attack ad. The main point of the attack ad was Moore supplementing his generous salary with money from running a charitable (not-for-profit) organization. Without that main point, virtually nothing remains.

PolitiFact covers itself with shame by failing to see the obvious. The original "Mostly False" rating fit the ad pretty well regardless of whether the ad correctly reported the amount of money Moore was paid for working at a not-for-profit organization.

Assuming PolitiFact did not confuse itself?

If PolitiFact denies making a mistake by losing track of the point of the ad, we have another case that helps amplify the point we made with our post on Sept. 1, 2017. In that post, we noted that PolitiFact graded one of Trump's claims as "False" based on not giving Trump credit for his underlying point.

PolitiFact does not address the "underlying point" of claims in a consistent manner.

In our current example, the attack ad on Roy Moore gets PolitiFact's seal of "Mostly" approval only by ignoring its underlying point. The ad actually misled in two ways, first by saying Moore was supplementing his income as judge with income from his charity when the two source of income were not concurrent, and secondly by reporting the charity income while downplaying the period of time over which that income was spread. Despite the dual deceit, PolitiFact graded the claim "Mostly True."

"The decision about a Truth-O-Meter rating is entirely subjective"

Cases like this support our argument that PolitiFact tends to base its ratings on subjective judgments. This case also highlights a systemic failure of transparency at PolitiFact.

We will update this item if PolitiFact surprises us by running a second correction.



Afters

On top of problems we described above, PolitiFact neglected to tag its revised/republished story with the "Corrections and Updates" tag its says it uses for all corrected or updated stories.

PolitiFact has a poor record of following this part of its corrections policy.

We note, however, that after we pointed out the problem via Twitter and email PolitiFact fixed it without a long delay.

The unquotable Judith Curry

Judith Curry's Twitter avatar.

A reader tipped us to the fact that climate research expert Judith Curry has posted interview questions she received from PolitiFact's John Kruzel, along with her responses to those questions.

Kruzel solicited Curry's views in the context of fact-checking a statement about carbon dioxide's role in climate change. Kruzel's fact check lists his email interview of Curry in its source list, but the fact check does not quote, paraphrase or summarize Curry's views.

In accordance with its Creative Commons licensing, we present Curry's account of her PolitiFact interview, following the format she used at the blog she hosts, Climate Etc. (we added a bracketed explanation of the IPCC acronym):

On June 20, John Kruzel, the author of the Politifact article, sent me an email:

We’re looking into Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s recent claim that the main cause of climate change is most likely “the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.” We’ve asked the Department of Energy why Perry disagrees with the IPCC  [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] that human activity is the main cause of climate change; we’ve received no response so far.

I’d be grateful if you’d consider the following questions:

Questions from Politifact to JC, and JC’s responses:

Do you consider the IPCC the world’s leading authority on climate change and why?
The IPCC is driven by the interests of policy makers, and the IPCC’s conclusions represent a negotiated consensus.  I don’t regard the IPCC framework to be helpful for promoting free and open inquiry and debate about the science of climate change.
 .
Do you agree with the IPCC that effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions “are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
It is possible that humans have been the dominant cause of the recent warming, but we don’t really know how to separate out human causes from natural variability.  The ‘extremely likely’ confidence level is wholly unjustified in my opinion.
 .
How solid is the science behind the conclusion that human activity is the main cause of climate change?
Not very solid, in my opinion.  Until we have a better understanding of long term oscillations in the ocean and indirect solar effects, we can’t draw definitive conclusions about the causes of recent warming.
 .
What is your response to Perry’s statement?
I don’t have a problem with Perry’s statement.  There is no reason for him to be set up as an arbiter of climate science.  He seems clearly committed to a clean environment and research to developing new energy technologies, which is  his job as Secretary of Energy.

JC question:  So what are we to conclude from PolitiFact’s failure to even mention or consider my responses, after explicitly asking for them?

We suggest it's safe to conclude Kruzel had his mind made up on this fact check before contacting his expert sources. Asking experts if they agree the IPCC is the leading authority on climate change qualifies as a classic leading question, and offers a strong indication that the IPCC's leading role in the story was central before Kruzel contacted Curry. The second question counts as another leading question, set up by the first leading question.

It looks like Kruzel was trying to lead the experts toward giving quotations to back what he had already decided to write.

Kruzel's third and fourth questions are fine. A serious fact check could have worked based on those questions alone, dropping the leading questions and Kruzel's/PolitiFact's confident proclamation regarding the IPCC (bold emphasis added):

The world’s leading authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has concluded that human activity is "extremely likely" to be the main driver of warming since the mid 20th century.

While it’s still possible to find dissenters, scientists around the globe generally agree with this conclusion.

Kruzel might have added: "We actually found one such dissenter without even really trying!"  But since PolitiFact does not publish its email interviews (unlike one transparent fact checker we know of), there's no telling whether PolitiFact found more than one such dissenter in its small pool of expert sources.

Seriously, what is the basis in fact for calling the IPCC "the world's leading authority on climate change"? Such designations stem from popular or expert opinions, don't they? Objective reporting makes such distinctions clear. What Kruzel did was not objective reporting.



Correction June 28, 2017: Belatedly added a hyperlink to the PolitiFact fact check that cites Curry without quoting Curry