Miami New Times: "How PolitiFact Got Its "Fake News" Tag Wrong on Occupy Democrats"

This is not a post highlighting PolitiFact's left-leaning bias.

This is a post serving to remind us that PolitiFact often operates in a slipshod manner.

The Miami New Times came out with a story on Oct. 2, 2017 rightly panning PolitiFact for miscategorizing "Occupy Democrats" as fake news.

Sure, Occupy Democrats publishes false stories. But the folks at PolitiFact (and others in the fact-checking clique) bang the drum reminding everybody that fake news is the publication of deliberately false stories. That's made-up stuff, not just mistakenly or stupidly wrong.

Despite that, PolitiFact listed Occupy Democrats on its page of fake news sources.

(W)hen New Times asked why PolitiFact had classified the liberal Facebook-based news empire Occupy Democrats as "Fake News" in its Fake News Almanac, the site admitted Occupy Democrats should never have been on the list in the first place. The misclassification highlights the difficulty of judging fake news, even for the pros, and raises questions about the reliability of the almanac.

 The New Times obtained a predictable excuse from the PolitiFact's Joshua Gillin:

(Gillin said) the site should not have been included in the almanac because the majority of its posts reviewed by PolitiFact were not designated as fake news, and the two that were deemed fake news date to 2016. For a whole site to be classified as fake news, he said, it must regularly make a "deliberate attempt to mislead."

PolitiFact took Occupy Democrats off the list after getting challenged on its inclusion. But one advantage PolitiFact obtains by making its fake news site almanac an embed instead of a published article stems from canceling its responsibility to issue a correction notice.

Obviously there's neither a need nor responsibility to note corrections made to embedded content right, right?

Just call it the embedded content loophole.

Joy Behar lies 100 percent of the time. It's from PolitiFact.

Of course the title of this post is intended solely to draw attention to its content. We do not think Joy Behar lies 100 percent of the time, no matter what PolitiFact or Politico say.

For the record, Behar's PolitiFact file as of Sept. 19, 2017:

As we have noted over the years, many people mistakenly believe  PolitiFact scorecards reasonably allow one to judge the veracity of politicians and pundits. We posted about Behar on Sept. 7, 2017, noting that she apparently shared that mistaken view.

PolitiFact surprised us by fact-checking Behar's statement. The fact check gave PolitiFact the opportunity to correct Behar's core misperception.

Unfortunately, PolitiFact and writer Joshua Gillin blew the opportunity.

A representative selection of statements?

Critics of PolitiFact, including PolitiFact Bias, have for years pointed out the obvious problems with treating PolitiFact's report cards as a means of judging general truthfulness. PolitiFact does not choose its statements in way that would ensure a representative sample, and an abundance of doubt surrounds the accuracy of the admittedly subjective ratings.

Gillin's fact check rates Behar's conclusion about Trump's percentage of lies "False," but he succeeds in tap-dancing around each of the obvious problems.

Let Fred Astaire stand aside in awe (bold emphasis added):

It appeared that Behar was referring to Trump’s PolitiFact file, which tracks every statement we’ve rated on the Truth-O-Meter. We compile the results of a person's most interesting or provocative statements in their file to provide a broad overview of the kinds of statements they tend to make.

Focusing on a person's most interesting or provocative statements will never provide a broad overview of the kinds of statements they tend to make. Instead, that focus will provide a collection of the most interesting or provocative statements the person makes, from the point of view of the ones picking the statements. Gillin's statement is pure nonsense, like proposing that sawing segments from a two-by-four will tend to help lengthen the two-by-four. In neither case can the method allow one to reach the goal.

Gillin's nonsense fits with a pattern we see from PolitiFact. Those in charge of PolitiFact will occasionally admit to the problems the critics point out, but PolitiFact's daily presentation obscures those same problems.

Gillin sustains the pattern as his fact check proceeds.

When is a subjective lie an objective lie?

In real life, the act of lying typically involves an intent to deceive. In PolitiFact's better moments, it admits the difficulty of appearing to accuse people of lying. In a nutshell, it's very dicey to state as fact a person was lying unless one is able to read minds. But PolitiFact apparently cannot resist the temptation of judging lies, or at least the temptation of appearing to make those judgments.

Gillin (bold emphasis added):

Behar said PolitiFact reported that "95 percent of what (Trump) says is a lie."

That’s a misreading of Trump’s file, which notes that of the 446 statements we’ve examined, only 5 percent earned a True rating. We’ve rated Trump’s statements False or Pants On Fire a total of 48 percent of the time.

The definitions of our Truth-O-Meter ratings make it difficult to call the bulk of Trump’s statements outright lies. The files we keep for people's statements act as a scorecard of the veracity of their most interesting claims.

Is Gillin able to read minds?

PolitiFact's fact checks, in fact, do not provide descriptions of reasoning allowing it to judge whether a person used intentionally deceptive speech.

PolitiFact's report cards tell readers only how PolitiFact rated the claims it chose to rate, and as PolitiFact's definitions do not mention the term "lie" in the sense of willful deception, PolitiFact ought to stick with calling low ratings "falsehoods" rather than "lies."

Of course Gillin fails to make the distinction clear.

We are not mind readers. However ...

Though we have warned about the difficulty of stating as fact that a person has engaged in deliberate deception, there are ways one may reasonably suggest it has occurred.

If good evidence exists that a party is aware of information contradicting that party's message and the party continues to send that same message anyway, it is reasonable to conclude that the party is (probably) lying. That is, the party likely engages in willful deception.

The judgment should not count as a matter of fact. It is the product of analysis and may be correct or incorrect.

Interviews with PolitiFact's principal figures often make clear that judging willful deception is not part of their fact-checking process. Yet PolitiFact has a 10-year history of blurring the lines around its judgments, ranging from the "Pants on Fire" rating ("Liar, liar, pants on fire!") for "ridiculous" claims, to articles like Gillin's that skip opportunities to achieve message clarity in favor of billows of smoke.

In between the two, PolitiFact has steadfastly avoided establishing a habit of attaching appropriate disclaimers to its charts and graphs. Why not continually remind people that the graphs only cover what PolitiFact has rated after judging it interesting or provocative?

We conclude that PolitiFact wants to imply that some politicians habitually tell intentional falsehoods while maintaining its own plausible deniability. In other words, the fact checkers want to judge people as liars under the deceptive label of nonpartisan "fact-checking" but with enough wiggle room to help shield it from criticism.

We think that is likely an intentional deception. And if it is intentional, then PolitiFact is lying.

Why would PolitiFact engage in that deception?

Perhaps it likes the influence it wields on some voters through the deception. Maybe it's just hungry for click$. We're open to other explanations that might make sense of PolitiFact's behavior.

PolitiFact: "There are no sharks swimming in the streets of Houston or anywhere else"

We were amused when we noticed PolitiFact inquiring about the faked image of a shark swimming on a Houston freeway thanks to Hurricane Harvey.

"Is it true PolitiFact wonders if that's true?" we wondered.

Our amusement multiplied when we saw the headline over PolitiFact's story, albeit not a scoop, exposing the fakery:

There are no sharks swimming in the streets of Houston or anywhere else

No, seriously. That is how PolitiFact titled its story.

No sharks swimming in the Mediterranean?

No sharks swimming in the Indian Ocean?

No sharks swimming in the Atlantic Ocean?

No sharks swimming in the Pacific Ocean?

Are these questions silly? Of course, until we consider that PolitiFact is the fact checker that fact checks something if it can be construed to mean something, basing the fact check on the ability of some to construe creatively.

If we have "the streets of Houston" and "anywhere else," we don't see why we can't construe that to mean the Pacific Ocean, or even the shark exhibit at Sea World.

Still, we believe in charitable interpretation. What if PolitiFact was just trying to say that there were no sharks swimming "in the streets" in Houston or anywhere else?

Well, immediately we put that together with PolitiFact's "Half True" ruling on President Obama's claim that fish swim in the streets of Miami at high tide.

If fish can swim in the streets of Miami at high tide, then what about a little 'ol bonnethead shark? Couldn't a Miami-area bonnethead put the lie to PolitiFact's claim that no sharks swim in any streets anywhere? And what about submerged cities such as Port Royal? What keeps the sharks away from those streets?

PolitiFact lives in a glass house, throwing stones.

Fact, motivation, and PolitiFact's inconsistency

One of the oldest legislative tricks involves introducing a bill that will not pass so that one party can slam the member of the opposing party for not supporting one part of the bill.

We've seen the Democrats use that technique to terrific effect with the "Violence Against Women Act." And Republicans do the same type of thing to Democrats.

A Democrat or a Republican might have motivations behind their opposition that undercut the message their opponents try to use against them.

But does PolitiFact treat these same types of campaign ads the same way for both parties?

It sure doesn't look like it.

PolitiFact Missouri today graded a Republican claim in this category "Half True."

Note how PolitiFact Missouri justifies its conclusion (bold emphasis added):

Greitens says Koster voted against a 2007 bill requiring the state to pay for rape victims’ medical exams.In reality, the bill did more than that.

Koster says he objected to wording that made it possible for convicted murderers to be granted parole by claiming they were victims of domestic abuse. Koster said the language made it possible for murderers to manufacture evidence to be released before the completion of their sentence.

Greitens is cherry-picking one part of the legislation to paint his opponent as soft on domestic abuse. We rate his claim Half True.

As we noted back in August, PolitiFact Florida gave a "True" rating to Democrat Patrick Murphy when he made a parallel claim about his Republican opponent:

And note how PolitiFact Florida justifies its conclusion:

Murphy said Rubio "voted against the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act."

Rubio voiced support for the original law, but he and some Republicans in both the Senate and House opposed certain provisions added to the bill pertaining to spending and federal oversight. Rubio voted against the bill in 2012 and 2013, but it passed with bipartisan support the second time.

Even though he had clearly stated his reasons why, Rubio still voted nay. We rate Murphy’s statement True.

Both cases feature the same type of deception, and PolitiFact's fact checkers take note of the deception in both cases. But the Republican gets a "Half True" rating while the Democrat gets a "True" rating.

This type of example isn't atypical. It's just another day at the office for PolitiFact's left-leaning fact checkers.


Afters

It's worth pointing out that our previous post shows PolitiFact Wisconsin using essentially this same illicit ad technique against Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.).

The next year, Johnson voted against a Senate amendment to affirm that human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

While all but one senator supported an earlier amendment affirming the existence of climate change, only five Republicans this time voted to acknowledge there is a human impact. The amendment, seen as a symbolic effort by the Democrats to force GOP senators to take a position, failed 50 to 49 (it required a 3/5 majority).

PolitiFact Wisconsin saw nothing wrong with using Johnson's opposition to the amendment as a solid evidence that Johnson thinks humans have no role in climate change even though the amendment did not narrowly address that issue.

Q: What's the difference between PolitiFact and the Democratic Party?
A: The Democratic Party doesn't claim to be nonpartisan.

A partisan coin flip for PolitiFact Florida?

A former staffer at the Cleveland Plain Dealer (the one-time PolitiFact Ohio affiliate) said the difference between one rating and another often amounted to a coin flip.

Such coin flips provide a golden opportunity for bias to swing the vote in one of PolitiFact's "star chamber" judgment sessions.

PolitiFact Florida gives us a wonderfully illustrative pair of examples:

Alan Grayson (D) vs  Patrick Murphy (D), May 16, 2016

Democrat Alan Grayson charged fellow Democrat and senate primary opponent Patrick Murphy with voting in favor of the House Benghazi committee. PolitiFact found Grayson's claim "Mostly  True." It would have been simply "True" except Grayson neglected to mention that Murphy defended his vote by saying he wanted the committee to clear Hillary Clinton's name.

Patrick Murphy (D) vs Marco Rubio (R), August 24, 2016

Democrat Patrick Murphy (same Patrick Murphy from the example above) charged Republican incumbent senatorial candidate Marco Rubio with voting against the Violence Against Women Act. PolitiFact Florida rated Murphy's claim "True," while pointing out that Rubio objected to changes made to the Act when it was submitted for reauthorization. Rubio said he favored the original wording.

But ... but ... but ...

We often encounter one knee-jerk defense when we compare two different and inconsistent ratings from PolitiFact: The circumstances were different!

Yes, the circumstances are always at least somewhat different when comparing two different fact checks. It's the difference between the two that makes them two different fact checks in the first place. The difference in circumstance only serves as a defense against the charge of inconsistency if the difference serves as a good explanation for the difference in ratings.

Grayson made a compound charge against Murphy, while Murphy made a simple charge against Rubio. That's a difference, but it only makes explaining the different ratings more difficult. PolitiFact Florida made no complaint against Grayson's charge that Murphy was in a small group of Democrats voting for the Benghazi committee. Averaging that "true" part of the rating with the less-true "voted for" part of the rating makes the latter even lower when considered by itself.

The difference in this case relies entirely on whatever criteria PolitiFact Florida used to figure out when it is okay to leave out context.

Coin flip?

 

PolitiFact has published definitions of its ratings. Two definitions are relevant to our comparison:

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

From the two definitions above, it follows that Grayson's statement about Murphy needed clarification or additional information. Murphy's statement about Rubio, in contrast, had nothing significant missing.

It was significant that Murphy claimed his vote was intended to defend Clinton.

It was insignificant that Rubio claimed he supported the Violence Against Women Act minus the objectionable amendments.

Was this a pair of coin flips both won by Murphy?

The call for transparency

 

The Poynter Institute, which owns PolitiFact, supports the idea that fact checkers ought to exhibit transparency. In that spirit of transparency, we contacted the writer and editor of both fact checks to ask how they objectively determined when it was okay to leave out context.

The two of you collaborated on a parallel pair of fact checks dealing with charges that a candidate voted for a certain bill.

In one case Alan Grayson charged that Patrick Murphy voted to establish the House Benghazi committee. Your fact check found Murphy had made the vote but said he did it to clear Clinton. The fact check said Grayson should have included that context and dropped Grayson's rating down to "Mostly True."

In the second case the same Murphy said Marco Rubio voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Your fact check found Rubio had opposed the Act with his vote but he said he supported the original version of the bill (without amendments added for its re-authorization). The fact check rated Murphy's statement "True," implying that Murphy was at no fault for omitting Rubio's support for the original version of the VAWA.

In the interest of journalistic transparency (which I know PolitiFact publicly champions):

How does an objective and nonpartisan fact checker make the critical distinction between context that is properly omitted and context that should have been included?

We will transparently update this item if we receive any reply from PolitiFact Florida or its parent organizations.

Meanwhile, heads Murphy wins, tails Rubio loses. Coin flip.

Bernie Sanders, PolitiMath and the price of water in Flint

In our PolitiMath series we look at how numerical errors correlate to PolitiFact's ratings.

PolitiFact's March 7, 2016 rating of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) suits our purposes well, with Sanders claiming Flint residents pay three times for water what Sanders pays in Burlington, Vt.

PolitiFact found Sanders was right if it used outdated water rates:

When we look at average annual bills from January 2015, Sanders’ 3-to-1 comparison is pretty close. But after August, Flint customers were paying a little more than twice as much as Burlington residents.

A judge's order in August 2015 rolled back water rates. Therefore, as PolitiFact notes, Flint residents now pay about twice what Burlington residents pay, counting Flint's charges for the home water meter. Burlington doesn't charge for the water meter.

To us, it's okay if Sanders wants to round up to get to his "three times" figure. So for PolitiMath purposes, we'll calculate how much 2.5 exaggerates the difference in water rates between Flint and Burlington.

Going by PolitiFact's chart, "a little more than twice as much" turned out to be about 2.4, leading to a very modest exaggeration on Sanders' part: about 4 percent. Yes, allowing for rounding up helped Sanders immensely. That's okay. We'd handle this the same way for a conservative.

PolitiFact gave Sanders a "Mostly True" rating, by the way, for a claim that was literally false.  

Deja vu.

Left Jab: "Politifact's Fuzzy Case Against Bernie Sanders on Pentagon Spending"

An article from the Huffington Post gets some good pokes in against PolitiFact's less-than-clear reasoning in a fact check of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

We're not convinced of the author's main point. He says the mainstream media have no interest in real discussions of the military budget.

But he makes a pretty good case that the fact check of Sanders is short on facts:

What is the core of PolitiFact's argument? Sanders' claim is "mostly false" not because we have good reason to believe that some very different number is much more likely to be correct - like 20%, or 50%, or 90% - but because the share of the Pentagon budget which goes into fighting ISIS and international terrorism is a fundamentally unknowable fact, like how God passed the time before creating the world. The question is intrinsically outside the scope of human knowledge.

And what does PolitiFact do with questions outside the scope of human knowledge? Why, fact check them, of course!

These types of fact checks occur often on PolitiFact's pages. More often Republicans are the victims of this shoddy approach to fact-checking. But we don't shy away from sharing good examples showing PolitiFact treating Democrats or progressives unfairly.




Update 1/20/16 2129PST: Added links to Huffington Post and PolitiFact articles in first paragraph- Jeff

Joshua Gillin's bad fact check: 'Rubio's bad analogy'

PolitiFact Florida and writer/researcher Joshua Gillin yesterday offered another example of PolitiFact's unworthiness.

PolitiFact Florida published Gillin's story about a portion of Marco Rubio's speech announcing the latter's run for president. In the story, Gillin judges Rubio used a bad analogy in his speech:

Sen. Marco Rubio confirmed his 2016 presidential campaign Monday, but an apparent musical analogy in his announcement speech was a bit off key. During a speech in which he implied his opponents were too old, Rubio accused the competition of wanting to recycle ideas "stuck in the 20th century."

"They’re busy looking backwards, so they do not see how jobs and prosperity today depend on our ability to compete in a global economy," Rubio said. "And so our leaders put us at a disadvantage by taxing and borrowing and regulating like it’s 1999."

Gillin surmises Rubio was referencing Prince's "1999," a top-40 hit back in 1983. Gillin likewise surmises Rubio was making a joke and so does not rate his claim on the "Truth-O-Meter." We think Gillin judged correctly on both points. Unfortunately for Gillin, that largely exhausts the good news.

Having determined Rubio was joking, Gillin proceeds to fact check Rubio's joke as though Rubio was trying to use 1999 as a serious example of liberal tax-and-spend policy.

How can we sufficiently emphasize the wrongheadedness of that approach? Why isn't it obvious that a joke is not intended as a literal comparison? If it's obvious that the joke isn't intended as a literal comparison then why proceed with a literal comparison at all?

It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Gillin even claims it's "ironic" that Rubio references a 1983 tune while touting his youth as a campaign positive. We can only count this as an evidence Gillin doesn't understand irony. Seriously, using a reference to an enduringly popular song is supposed to undercut Rubio's youthful appeal? Seriously? Did the relatively youthful Gillin have to Google "1999" to understand Rubio's reference?

As soon as PolitiFact understood it was a joke, the justifiable rationale for fact-checking Rubio disappeared. What PolitiFact Florida published was not a fact-check but an op-ed extolling the fiscal responsibility of President Bill Clinton. Gillin deftly avoids sharing credit for Clinton's accomplishments with the Republican-controlled Congress.

Near the end of his story Gillin confirms what we're saying:

So while Rubio likely isn’t making a literal comparison to 1999, his talking points would be off if he did: Taxes were higher back then, but the budget was balanced, while the opposite is true today.

So Rubio receives more-or-less the full effect of an unfavorable article premised on an admittedly unlikely view of his words.

It makes for a pretty good example of PolitiFact's supposed nonpartisanship.


Update 4/16/2015:
Added a link to the PolitiFact article. And, as the article was hosted at PolitiFact national and not PolitiFact Florida, struck the word "Florida" where it followed "PolitiFact" in our post.