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.

Something rotten in PolitiFact Missouri

It's not the bad reporting, it's the cover up.

Okay, it's both.

On May 18, 2016, PolitiFact Missouri published a fact check of the gender pay gap issue. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster said closing Missouri's gender pay gap would gain $9 billion for Missouri women. PolitiFact Missouri botched the fact check, calculating that Missouri women would only gain $7.5 billion, not $9 billion. Koster received a "Mostly True" rating.

It read like this at the time:

The bias related portion of the gap could be as much as $7.5 billion. That’s a lot of money, but it isn’t the $9 billion Koster claimed. When we’ve rated such claims before, statements that speak broadly about a wage gap, regardless of the underlying factors, get some benefit of the doubt.

Koster’s claim greatly oversimplifies a very complex situation, but the size of the gap is real. We rate this claim Mostly True.

Now it reads like this (bold emphasis added):

The bias related portion of the gap could be as much as $1.7 billion. That’s a lot of money, but it isn’t the $9 billion Koster claimed. When we’ve rated such claims before, statements that speak broadly about a wage gap, regardless of the underlying factors, get some benefit of the doubt.

Koster’s claim greatly oversimplifies a very complex situation, but the size of the gap is real. We rate this claim Mostly True.

A key figure in the story changed from $7.5 billion to $1.7 billion. Koster's exaggeration, by percentage, went from 20 percent to 429 percent.  The new version of the story carries no correction notice, and the rating remains "Mostly True."

How did we get here? What went wrong at PolitiFact Missouri?

Spoiler: The present version of PolitiFact Missouri's fact check remains far from accurate.

Gender pay gap follies with PolitiFact Missouri (Updated)

I've covered the poor job mainstream fact checkers do on Democrats' gender pay gap claims at Zebra Fact Check back in 2014. PolitiFact remains a basket case example among the big three fact checkers. A May 18, 2016 fact check from PolitiFact Missouri perhaps establishes a new low point in fact-checking the gender pay gap.

Our review of this case will look at the major errors first, but this post will go in-depth on the evidence because this case looks very bad for PolitiFact. The facts demand we consider the possibility that PolitiFact Missouri chose and executed this fact check to deliberately favor Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Koster.

The Gender Pay Gap in Missouri

PolitiFact Missouri's fact check focuses on a claim made on Twitter:

Koster tweeted, "The #WageGap isn’t about isn’t about [sic] a few cents — it can mean EVERYTHING to a working woman trying to provide for her family."

His tweet contained a photo with a captain [sic] that stated, "Closing our state’s wage gap would make a $9 billion difference to Missouri women."

Democratic politicians often blur the line between the raw gender pay gap and a gap caused by gender discrimination in the workplace.

The raw gender pay gap in this case represents the difference in pay between men and women regardless of the job and without accounting for differences in hours worked by full-time employees.

The unexplained gender pay gap is the difference in pay between men and women after explaining part of the gap. The unexplained gap varies depending on what the researchers try to explain, so measurement of that gap may vary.

Some portion of the unexplained gap is perhaps explained by gender discrimination. But the research does not pin down that percentage. Studies that consider more potential explanations tend to show smaller unexplained gaps.

PolitiFact Missouri acknowledged that Koster blurred that line between raw pay gap and any percentage of that gap caused by gender discrimination . But PolitiFact Missouri's generous calculation of wages potentially lost to gender discrimination was close to Koster's $9 billion figure. So Koster eventually skated with a "Mostly True" rating (bold emphasis added):

A study from the Institute for the Study of Labor, an economic research institute based in Bonn, Germany, shows the unexplained wage gap in the United States falls somewhere between 8 percent and 18 percent of the total earnings difference, if the figures are adjusted for additional factors.Using the high-end estimate, the $9.5 billion figure falls to about $7.5 billion.

At first, we thought PolitiFact did the wrong math equation. If  "18 percent of the total earnings difference" may stem from gender discrimination, then taking 18 percent of the total earnings difference ($9.5 billion, according to PolitiFact Missouri) should yield a figure of $1.71 billion. Yet PolitiFact Missouri calculated a figure of $7.5 billion. Our first messages to PolitiFact Missouri about its fact check questioned their math equation.

However, we did not do a good enough job verifying that PolitiFact's description of the report was correct. The report estimates an unexplained gender pay gap between 8 and 18 percent [see embedded Update for clarification] for 2014 2010. So 18 percent represents the total unexplained earnings difference the researchers estimated, not a percentage of the raw gender wage gap. PolitiFact Missouri described the report's results poorly.  PolitiFact Missouri also relied on a study that skimped on gap explanations compared to other studies found through its source list.

Using its preferred study, PolitiFact calculated as much as $7.5 billion of the raw $9.5 billion gap may represent gender discrimination. The math is right. But is PolitiFact Missouri justified in using the 18 percent figure for its calculation?

We think using the high-end estimate from the report containing the highest estimates amounts to cherry-picking. We expect neutral fact checkers to avoid cherry-picking.

After the page break, we'll describe the findings of the reports PolitiFact Missouri cited but ignored for purposes of its math equations. Beyond that, we'll note how PolitiFact passed up an easier fact check of Koster--one with a cut-and-dried poor result for Koster. That other fact check was also from Koster's Twitter feed, so we see no obvious reason why PolitiFact Missouri would have missed it.