PolitiFact crazy about guns

Is PolitiFact crazy about guns?

Consider the evidence.

Back on Nov. 15, 2013, PolitiFact gave Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) a "Mostly False" rating for claiming gun prosecutions were down 30 percent under President Obama from what they were under President Bush. The rationale PolitiFact used to back its rating was crazy.

PolitiFact preferred measuring the trend in prosecutions using "all charges" instead of "lead charges." PolitiFact used data from the Department of Justice's United States Attorneys Office. Fine. We can work with that:

PolitiFact used the third data column, representing the number of defendants against whom firearm charges were filed. That number is higher than the number of cases in the first data column.

PolitiFact then veered into loony land by claiming that the best way to measure the trend in prosecutions was to compare 2002 under Bush to 2012 under Obama. Seriously:

The most reliable number may be the 10.3 percent increase in gun prosecutions between fiscal years 2002 and 2012. This rate actually indicates the trend moving in the opposite direction from what Cruz asserted.

Why would comparing the numbers for just two arbitrarily chosen years serve as the best method for measuring a trend over a period of about ten years? We have no idea.

PolitiFact argues that the third column represents the most "inclusive" number. But it doesn't follow that cherry-picking figures from the column representing the most inclusive number will yield the most accurate trend line. Rather, that method would appear to represent arbitrary cherry-picking. After all, why should 2002 serve as a representative year of gun prosecutions under Bush? In fact, the figure from 2002 is nothing other than the lowest number in the series PolitiFact presented to its readers.

Add to that the fact that the 2002 figure is at the very start of the series representing Bush, and one cannot accept the figure as any kind of trend for the Bush administration.


Statistics best show trends when we compare year-to-year changes over time. As with a graph:

A federal fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. Each two-term president will have complete responsibility for only seven fiscal years. Clinton shared FY 2001 with Bush. Bush shared FY 2009 with Obama. Of Bush's full seven fiscal years, PolitiFact used for its comparison the only one that Obama could have improved on.

PolitiFact finds its most revealing trend in gun prosecutions by comparing Bush's first full fiscal year with Obama's third full fiscal year and ignoring the data from all other fiscal years. PolitiFact's "most inclusive method" excluded most of the data. We can imagine no sensible justifying rationale for that method.

PolitiFact concluded by suggesting Cruz was well off the mark because the best method showed a trend toward increasing gun prosecutions under Obama (bold emphasis added):

Cruz said prosecution of gun crimes under the Bush administration was 30 percent higher than it is under Obama.

It’s possible to get a decline that big by cherry-picking the data, but the most inclusive method actually produces an increase. Cruz also overstates the role of the president in determining prosecution rates. We rate Cruz’s claim Mostly False.

Examples like this should rightly do tremendous damage to PolitiFact's credibility. Remember, PolitiFact's "star chamber" met to collectively consider this fact check. How can such rotten methodology go unnoticed by fact check professionals?


Afters

This is not the first time PolitiFact has pulled shenanigans with gun statistics.

Odds are it will not be the last.

PolitiFact's Subjective-O-Meter

PolitiFact Florida provides us with yet another sterling example of subjective "Truth-O-Meter" ratings.  PolitiFact "uses" the "Truth-O-Meter" to find the truth in politics.  Translated, that means PolitiFact does its version of fact checking and then picks one of the available "Truth-O-Meter" ratings, ranging from "Pants on Fire" to "True."

PolitiFact Florida gave DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz a "Mostly True" rating for her June 30 claim that nearly 60 percent of women who use birth control use it for purposes other than contraception.  That's supposed to remind us of the awful effect on women from the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision.

Wasserman Schultz's claim is false, as I show with an item at Zebra Fact Check.  But there's another aspect to this case that serves especially well to show the subjectivity of PolitiFact's trademarked "Truth-O-Meter."

PolitiFact rated "Half True" a very similar claim from Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).  We took note of that rating with an item of our own here at PolitiFact Bias.  And PolitiFact Florida noted the Boxer rating as well when it fact checked Wasserman Schultz:

Previously, we fact-checked a similar claim based on the same report. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said on MSNBC in March that "it’s important to note that women take birth control, more than half of them, as a medication for other conditions, so it is an attack on women."

We rated that claim Half True because it required additional clarification about the type of birth control and the survey results. Wasserman Schultz's statement was somewhat more carefully worded.

In what way was Wasserman Schultz's claim more carefully worded?  PolitiFact Florida doesn't say.  But it's true that PolitiFact rated Boxer "Half True" owing to the need for clarification about the type of birth control and the survey results:

Boxer said more than half of women use birth control  "as a medication for other conditions." She was referring specifically to the pill. Guttmacher says 58 percent of women on the pill take it for noncontraceptive reasons. But that number drops to 14 percent if you look at women who take the pill only for noncontraceptive reasons.

Her claim is based in fact, but requires additional clarification about the type of birth control and the survey results. We rate it Half True.

Both of these fact checks by PolitiFact are ridiculously generous, but let's focus on the differences between the Boxer rating and the one for Wasserman Schultz.  The fact is, there's not much of a difference:

Wasserman Schultz said that "nearly 60 percent of women who use birth control do so for more than just family planning."

This claim gets support from a Guttmacher Institute report that found 58 percent of pill users citing at least one non-contraceptive reason. However, Wasserman Schultz’s comment glosses over two important caveats.

Both Boxer and Wasserman Schultz said "birth control" while referring to data on birth control pills.  That accounts for PolitiFact's "clarification about the type of birth control."

Subjective.

The clarification about "survey results" from the Boxer fact check appears to match the second caveat in the Wasserman Schultz fact check.  Both fact checks point out the number of women in the survey who used the pill only for non-contraceptive purposes.

The stated reasons for the ratings are effectively identical, yet the ratings are different.

So let's return to the lone difference PolitiFact identifies, however unclearly: "Wasserman Schultz's statement was somewhat more carefully worded."

We can identify one respect in which Wasserman Schultz was more accurate than Boxer.  Boxer's wording strongly suggested women were using birth control pills for clinical non-contraceptive reasons.  Wasserman Schultz did the same thing, but with greater subtlety.   It's not much of a difference when it comes to justifying a "Mostly True" rating as opposed to a "Half True" rating, especially when the statement is obviously literally false.

It's another case that helps confirm that the "Truth-O-Meter" is subjective.

Is PolitiFact incapable of objectivity on climate change?

We noted PolitiFact's failure to report accurately on Marco Rubio's climate change statement from May 11, 2014.  Whatever's much bigger than doubling down on its disgraceful reporting on climate change, that's what PolitiFact's doing with its May 19 fact check of California governor Jerry Brown.

Brown said virtually no Republican in Washington D.C. accepts climate change science.

PolitiFact's fact check of Brown's claim is comical.

PolitiFact cites polls showing Republicans are more skeptical of mankind's role in causing global warming.  That isn't directly relevant to whether Republicans in D.C. reject the science of climate change.  PolitiFact doesn't bother telling its readers over 20 percent of Republicans in a 2013 Pew Research poll think humans are the primary cause of global warming.

PolitiFact touts many (mostly unnamed) examples of Republicans questioning climate change science "to some degree."  The degree is kind of important when we're talking about rejecting science, isn't it?

PolitiFact cites Marco Rubio as a recent example of a climate change denier.  We showed why PolitiFact's charge against Rubio is false.

PolitiFact cites Republicans John Boehner and Ted Cruz in a similar way.  The Boehner and Cruz examples share essentially the same flaws as the Rubio one.  The press takes statements out of context and draws its preferred conclusion.

PolitiFact cites the Organizing For Action's lengthy list of supposed "climate change deniers," assuring readers that OFA shows evidence for each one.  OFA was President Obama's campaign organization before it changed its name and purpose.  Therefore it's just as objective as press reports taken out of context.

PolitiFact cites an article about John McCain, saying it shows he's changed from his former acceptance of man-caused climate change.  We invite anyone to strain the article for that finding.

After that, we get the list of eight Republicans who supposedly accept climate change science.

And after that, PolitiFact admits that there may be more than eight.  PolitiFact doesn't tell you how many more there might be.  That would involve fact checking.

After all that, PolitiFact rates Gov. Brown "Mostly True":

Brown said that "virtually no Republican" in Washington accepts climate change science. When it comes to on-the-record comments of members of Congress, Brown’s characterization is about right.

We found at least eight Republicans in Congress who publicly voiced support for the scientific consensus and many more conservative legislators who deny either a human link to the changing climate, or the fact that the climate is changing altogether.

A reason for caution, however, is comments from someone like Yarnold — who suggest GOP members of Congress acknowledge climate change science behind closed doors but avoid the talk in public for political reasons.

We rate Brown’s claim Mostly True.

There are two major problems with PolitiFact's rating.

First, it's a mistake to use an all-or-nothing approach to acceptance of climate science.  That approach isn't used in establishing measurements of scientific consensus on the issue, so that measuring stick gives us an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Second, unless PolitiFact is accepting OFA's list at face value, PolitiFact simply assumes that over 200 Republicans are climate change deniers.  And even if PolitiFact accepts OFA's list at face value, PolitiFact is still assuming more than 100 Republicans are climate change deniers.  Those assumptions fly directly in the face of one of PolitiFact's principles, which look more and more like Pirates of the Caribbean "guidelines" with each passing day:

Burden of proof – People who make factual claims are accountable for their words and should be able to provide evidence to back them up. We will try to verify their statements, but we believe the burden of proof is on the person making the statement.

Don't worry, Gov. Brown. PolitiFact will pretend to have the proof you don't have.

Think about it.  If just half the 128 not accounted for from the OFA list plus McCain (Cruz and Rubio are on OFA's list, McCain isn't) and the elite eight, then the percentage of Republicans accepting the supposed science of climate change is 26 percent.  Even overlooking the mind-boggling sloppiness of the fact check, we're left with a range of 3-49 percent (counting McCain as a denier).

It's irresponsible journalism to use biased secondary sources like OFA as the basis for a fact-check finding.  It's incumbent on the journalist to verify the accuracy of such sources.  We see no indication of that from PolitiFact.

This is PolitiFact fact checking.  But there's another name for it.  Crap.


Addendum

Context, Context

Hot Air has a little item on Gov. Brown's statement revealing its original context.  Brown brought up climate change as a cause of California's current problem with wild fires.

It's settled science or something.  Wouldn't PolitiFact have questioned it otherwise?


Correction/Update 5/20/2014:
Fixed assorted grammatical problems and added a parenthetical "mostly unnamed."

More on PolitiFact's deceptive Rubio/climate correction

We've uncovered a bit more evidence of PolitiFact's dishonest correction of its climate-change hit piece on Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

For review, here's the correction notice PolitiFact attached to its amended article:

CORRECTION: This story was updated on May 15 to clarify that 97.1 percent of the studies that took a position on global warming agreed that there's been a negative human impact on the atmosphere; more than half the studies did not take a position. Also, the story clarifies that the 2013 report looked at studies, not individual scientists.

The original article wasn't unclear about the 2013 report. It flatly said the report indicated 97.1 percent of scientists disagree with Rubio's supposed claim (PolitiFact blew and continues to blow the reporting on what Rubio said) that humans do not contribute to climate change.

Here's how PolitiFact was publicizing the Rubio fact check on its list of stories (red oval added to draw attention to the false reporting):

PolitiFact's clarification is not a clarification.  It's a gloss on a reporting error.

Here's how the Rubio blurb appears today:

PolitiFact's original article encouraged readers to conclude that 97 percent of scientists agree the Antarctic ice shelf is collapsing because of human-caused climate change.  That's a deception far worse than the Jeep ad from the Romney campaign that PolitiFact awarded its 2012 "Lie of the Year."  And the current version remains more misleading than that Romney ad.

PolitiFact continues climate change smear of Rubio

I noted over at Zebra Fact Check last year how PolitiFact has enlisted itself to aid in tarring various Republican politicians as "climate change deniers."  PolitiFact continued that effort this month:

Scientists have been issuing more new reports on the irreversible effects of climate change in recent weeks. Two groups reported on May 12, 2014, that the global sea level will rise at least 10 feet, accelerating to a dangerous pace after the next century.

Just a day before those reports were released, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., sat down with ABC’s Jonathan Karl on This Week. Talk turned to climate change, where the possible Republican presidential candidate denied a link between humans and the changing environment.

PolitiFact wasn't alone in its interpretation of Rubio's remark.  Unfortunately, PolitiFact didn't included enough context to make clear what Rubio was talking about.  Lucy McAlmont, writing at Patterico's Pontifications, took note of the cyclone of media spin and provided that context (bold emphasis carried over from McAlmont's transcript):

KARL: Miami, Tampa, are two of the cities that are most threatened by climate change. So putting aside your disagreement with what to do about it, do you agree with the science on this? I mean, how big a threat is climate change?

RUBIO: I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow, there are actions that we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity. I do not agree with that.

KARL: You don’t buy that.

RUBIO: I don’t know of any era in history where climate has been stable. Climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed.

KARL: Let me get this straight. You do not think that human activity, the production of CO2 has caused warming to our planet?

RUBIO: I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not — And I do not believe that the laws we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy.

Reading Rubio's responses to Karl, it should be obvious that PolitiFact reports falsely when it says Rubio denied a link between humans and the changing environment. Rubio acknowledges people contribute to climate change but questions some of the more extreme claims.
 

PolitiFact provided a great example of an extreme claim.  We assume PolitiFact did this unknowingly.

The Ice Sheet

PolitiFact led the Rubio fact check with this:

Scientists have been issuing more new reports on the irreversible effects of climate change in recent weeks. Two groups reported on May 12, 2014, that the global sea level will rise at least 10 feet, accelerating to a dangerous pace after the next century.

That rise in sea level is a result of the irreversible effects of climate change?  And relevant to Rubio's skepticism regarding the size of mankind's role in climate change?

The hotlink embedded in PolitiFact's story leads to an article in The New York Times, where we find this:

Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica.

The Times' story goes on to note that (unnamed) researchers think global warming may have contributed to the wind pattern affecting the ice sheets.

For PolitiFact, somehow the tenuous scientific link between global warming and the collapsing ice sheet makes a perfect intro to its Rubio fact check.

That's irony.

A 97.1 Percent Consensus and a PolitiFact Correction

The original version of the Rubio fact check claimed 97.1 percent of scientist disagreed with Rubio.  We looked forward to dissecting that blunder.  Now we find PolitiFact buried it with the following correction:

CORRECTION: This story was updated on May 15 to clarify that 97.1 percent of the studies that took a position on global warming agreed that there's been a negative human impact on the atmosphere; more than half the studies did not take a position. Also, the story clarifies that the 2013 report looked at studies, not individual scientists.

That's how to do a dishonest correction.  PolitiFact buried its inaccurate reporting by clarifying that the 97.1 figure was a select group of science papers, not scientists.  And simply eliminates the inaccurate reporting, pretending it never happened.

See Also

James Taylor of Media Trackers Florida also brought some attention to PolitiFact's smear of Rubio. We've picked out a section that includes some of PolitiFact's pre-correction malfeasance:

PolitiFact Florida is flat-out wrong regarding its scientific assertions. PolitiFact Florida justified its “False” ruling by claiming, “A May 2013 report analyzing all scientific papers that address the causes of climate change showed 97.1 percent of scientists agree that there’s been a negative human impact on the atmosphere.”

Taylor's quotation makes clear the magnitude of some the false reporting PolitiFact covers up with its correction spin.

Also See

Zebra Fact Check has an article that helps sort out what various studies show about the consensus on climate change.

PolitiFact could have benefited by consulting it before publishing its Rubio smear.

PolitiFact: half mostly false, therefore false

It's PolitiFact potpourri!

We've had something like this happen at least once before, with Mitt Romney the focus of the fact check.  This time, PolitiFact was testing a viral claim making the rounds on Facebook:

The post has an element of truth but takes information out of context and requires a good deal of clarification. We rate this claim False.

The problem's so obvious that one would think layers of editors would be all over it.

Here's how PolitiFact defines "False":

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

Here's how PolitiFact defines "Mostly False"(bold emphasis added):

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

This is how PolitiFact defines "Half True" (bold emphasis added):

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

And here's how PolitiFact defines "Mostly True" (bold emphasis added):

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

PolitiFact rates a statement "False" because it matches parts of PolitiFact's definitions of "Mostly True," "Half True" and "Mostly False."  And that kind of sums up the problem with PolitiFact.

Rocket science it's not.  Subjective it is.