Does changing from "True" to "Half True" count as a correction? Clarification? Update? Anything?

The use and abuse of the PolitiMulligan

We've pointed out before PolitiFact's propensity to correct or update its stories on the sly, contrary to statements of journalistic ethics (including its own statement of principles) regarding transparency.

Thanks to PolitiFact, we have another example in the genre, where PolitiFact California, instead of announcing a correction or update, simply executed a do-over on one of its stories.

On July 28, 2016, PolitiFact ruled it "True" that vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence had advocated diverting federal money from AIDS care services to "conversion therapy." But Timothy P. Carney, writing for the right-leaning Washington Examiner, had published an item the day before explaining why the evidence used by Pence's critics did not wash.

I wrote about PolitiFact California's faulty fact check on July 29, 2016 at Zebra Fact Check.

On Dec. 2, 2016, PolitiFact partly reversed itself, publishing a new version of the fact check with a "Half True" rating replacing the original "True" rating.

To be sure, the new item features a lengthy editor's note explaining the reason for the new version of PolitiFact California's fact check. But readers should note that PolitiFact completely avoids any admission of error in its explanation:

EDITOR’S NOTE: On July 28, 2016, PolitiFact California rated as True a statement by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that Republican Indiana Governor and now Vice President-Elect Mike Pence "advocated diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy." We based that ruling on a statement Pence made in 2000 on his congressional campaign website, in which Pence says "Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." Subsequently, our readers and other fact-checking websites examined the claim and made some points that led us to reconsider the fact check. Readers pointed out that Pence never explicitly advocated for conversion therapy in his statement and that he may have been pushing for safer sex practices. Pence’s words are open to other interpretations: Gay and lesbian leaders, for example, say his statement continues to give the impression that he supported the controversial practice of conversion therapy when his words are viewed in context with his long opposition to LGBT rights. Taking all of this into account, we are changing our rating to Half True and providing this new analysis.

PolitiFact California’s practice is to consider new evidence and perspectives related to our fact checks, and to revise our ratings when warranted.

While we credit PolitiFact California for keeping an archived version of its first attempt available for readers, we find PolitiFact's approach a bit puzzling.

First of all, there are no "new evidence and perspectives" involved in this case. Carney's July 27 article ought to have pre-empted the flaw in PolitiFact California's original July 28 fact check, and Zebra Fact Check highlighted the problem again two days later: A fact checker needs to account for the difference in wording between "changing sexual behavior" and "changing sexual preference." Also noted was PolitiFact California's failure to explain the immediate context of the smoking gun quotation it used to convict Pence: The Ryan White Care Act.

PolitiFact California made two major mistakes in its fact-checking. First, it failed to offer due attention to the wording of Pence's statement. Second, it failed to consider the context.

The two major errors resulted in no admission of error. And PolitiFact California's do-over fails to even show up on PolitiFact's list of stories that were updated or corrected.

As for the new "Half True" rating? If "changing their sexual behavior" in the context of the Ryan White Care Act is open to interpretation as "changing their sexual orientation," then we claim as our privilege the interpretation of "Half True" as "False."

In other words, PolitiFact California, creative interpretation is no substitute for facts.


Afters

So apparently it is an update. Just not the type of update that PolitiFact includes on its "Corrections and Updates" page.

Quoting quotations that aren't

A comparison of two recent PolitiFact ratings involving Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence

Fresh from our post about PolitiFact overlooking Democrat Tim Kaine's inaccurate version of something Republican Mike Pence said, we stumbled over another PolitiFact item showing PolitiFact applying a different standard.

Pence, during the vice-presidential debate, defended a Trump statement from an attack by Kaine. PolitiFact allowed that Pence's defense was valid since it addressed a flaw in Kaine's attack. But PolitiFact also charged that Pence misquoted Trump.

We will draw attention to the exact words PolitiFact uses, because when PolitiFact assures us in its statement of principles that "words matter," we expect PolitiFact to live up to the standards it applies to others.

Mike Pence was right to defend Donald Trump against critics who claim Trump characterized all Mexicans as rapists. But he's wrong to quote Trump as saying "many are good people."

In the case we evaluated hours ago, PolitiFact did not accuse Tim Kaine of misquoting Pence even though Kaine switched out a word from Pence's statement that changed the meaning.

How does PolitiFact judge when one person is quoting another?

Let's try a comparison between these two cases.

Kaine:

But Gov. Pence said, inarguably, Vladimir Putin is a better leader than President Obama."

Pence:

PENCE: He also said and many of them are good people. You keep leaving that out of your quote. And if you want me to go there, I’ll go there.

We used The New York Times' transcript of the vice-presidential debate because PolitiFact had three different versions of Pence's statement. The first one occurs in the article header and has an open quotation mark when Pence says "And":

"also said, ‘And many of them (Mexicans) are good people. You keep leaving that out of your quote."

The second one occurs in the body of the story and repeats the open quotation mark. But it adds a closed quotation mark after "people":

"He also said, ‘And many of them are good people.’ You keep leaving that out of your quote."

The third one occurs in PolitiFact's concluding paragraphs and has no quotation marks within the quotation:

"also said and many of them (Mexicans) are good people. You keep leaving that out of your quote."

The New York Times' version is correct, as is the third version from PolitiFact. The Times' version is correct because AP style reserves quotation marks for precise quotations, not paraphrases or summaries. It follows that AP style will forbid quotation within a quotation where the quotations are not exact. The New York Times follows that rule.

In practice, that means that a person writing in AP style can only justify using punctuation to create a quotation within a quotation when the speaker clearly indicates it is intended as a quotation ("And I quote ...") or where the writer confirms the quotation meets the style guideline's demand for accuracy. To illustrate, the punctuation for "Paul said 'Put the dandelions on the plate'" should ordinarily occur only when it is known that Paul said "Put the dandelions on the plate." Otherwise, the writer ought to assume the speaker is paraphrasing or summarizing: Paul said put the dandelions on the plate.

PolitiFact, judging from its three different attempts at punctuation, had trouble figuring out what to do with Pence's statement. Punctuating Pence's sentence to make a quotation within a quotation would certainly lend an air of authority to its fact check. Anyone with eyes would see clearly see from that version that Pence was trying to quote Trump precisely. So if Pence got the quotation wrong then PolitiFact could justifiably criticize him for it.

Objective fact checkers do not assume quotation if paraphrase or summary better fits the context. If it is possible the words were meant as a paraphrase or summary of another source, then the punctuation should reflect it, as in the version The New York Times published.

Substandard standards

PolitiFact had before it two cases where a candidate spoke of something another person said, where the words used did not match the original words.

Kaine was off by just one word, but PolitiFact did not punctuate Kaine's statement to make a quotation within a quotation.

Pence changed a word and left out two words, but PolitiFact punctuated Pence's statement to make a quotation within a quotation.

Why the difference in treatment?

Kaine's substitution of "better" for "stronger" in his paraphrase of Pence substantially changed Pence's meaning, as we explained in our earlier post.

Pence's substitution of "many" for "some" slightly changed Trump's meaning. Pence's paraphrase was objectively better justified than Kaine's.

PolitiFact did not penalize Kaine for misquoting Pence, for its story did not consider Kaine was quoting Pence.

PolitiFact charged Pence with misquoting Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Kaine received a "Mostly True" rating from PolitiFact.

Pence received a "Half True" rating from PolitiFact.

Pence's statement was more accurate, yet PolitiFact gave it a lower rating than Kaine's.

The only standard we can imagine that justifies these outcomes is the "Republicans lie more" standard. But an objective fact checker should reason from the outcome of numerous fact checks toward the conclusion "Republicans lie more," not reason from "Republicans lie more" to assigning lower fact check ratings for Republicans.

The latter represents a naked expression of ideological bias.

PolitiFact and the Trump tax return promise

The liberal bloggers at PolitiFact have weighed in on whether Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has broken his promise to release his tax returns. Trump, PolitiFact says, has broken his promise. We know PolitiFact says this thanks to the "False" rating it gave Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, for saying Trump has not broken his promise.

There's a problem for PolitiFact, here. Pence is right, at least if PolitiFact is giving us the right version(s) of Trump's promise. PolitiFact provided no versions of the promise with any deadline attached.

A promise made with no deadline for keeping the promise is never broken, unless we count death as a deal breaker.

PolitiFact has apparently confused not keeping a promise with breaking a promise.

So long as Trump has not released his tax returns, he has not kept his promise to release his tax returns. But lacking a deadline for keeping the promise, until Trump has passed up every opportunity he will ever have to keep the promise, he has not broken the promise.

It's a simple matter of logic.

But, but, but, but ....

Trump implied that he would release his returns before election day!

Yes, perhaps so. It's an arguable point. But until election day rolls around and Trump has not released his tax returns, Trump has not broken his promise. And Pence is right to say so.


It's a simple matter of logic.



So why does PolitiFact struggle so with simple matters of logic?

Zebra Fact Check: "Conversion therapy, Mike Pence and PolitiFact California"

Alternate title: Is PolitiFact California stupid II 

Very shortly after publishing "Is PolitiFact California stupid: Mike Pence and the mythical denial of evolution," we ran across another nonsensical fact-checking attempt from PolitiFact California. I gave it fact check treatment at Zebra Fact Check.

This time PolitiFact California looked at a statement from California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom said Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence wanted to divert tax money to conversion therapy. PolitiFact said the claim was "True."

But where was the evidence? PolitiFact tried to rely on this part of Pence's campaign website from his 2000 run for the House of Representatives:

• Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.

Is the problem obvious? It should be:

PolitiFact California performed this part of the fact check adequately, establishing a definition early in its fact check:

Conversion therapy is a controversial practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight.

PolitiFact’s definition clarifies the key issue for this fact check: If “conversion therapy” seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation, does it count as “conversion therapy” to seek to change a person’s sexual behavior?

It's worth noting that the Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney saw the problem before PolitiFact California published its fact check. Not that PolitiFact California would notice.

In context, Pence was talking about government money distributed to organizations providing care for HIV+ persons. Pence's line about directing resources to organizations helping people who want to change their sexual behavior likely serves as a counterpoint to his preceding line: Pence was making a contrast to organizations that encourage risky sexual behavior.

PolitiFact left out the context of the Ryan White Care Act.

And PolitiFact took "sexual behavior" to mean "sexual orientation" without explanation.

It's another fact-checking train-wreck for PolitiFact California. Visit Zebra Fact Check for more details.

Tweezers: PolitiFact and the Indiana boycott

Sometimes PolitiFact focuses on one part of a statement. Sometimes PolitiFact spreads its focus to cover the whole of a statement. We use the "Tweezers or Tongs" tag for posts where we draw a contrast involving PolitiFact's choice of focus.

On April 2, 2015, PolitiFact published a story looking at a statement from Red State's Erick Erickson. Erickson wrote about Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the willingness of some on the left to punish Indiana economically for passing the legislation.

PolitiFact lays out the basics, we provide the bold emphasis:

In a column for conservative grassroots site RedState.com, editor-in-chief Erick Erickson criticized business owners and people on the left who say the law will allow anyone to cite religious belief in refusing to serve gays and lesbians. Erickson’s opening sentence hones in on Apple chief executive Tim Cook for what he sees as hypocritical business practices.

"To recap: Tim Cook (please, please click this link) and the left are happy to do business in countries that stone to death or otherwise jail gay people, but will not do business with Indiana," Erickson wrote, "which merely passed a law insisting that the ‘free exercise’ clause of the first amendment be on the same legal footing in courts as the ‘free speech’ clause of the first amendment."

Obviously Erickson wasn't talking only about Apple CEO Tim Cook. He mentioned "the left." And Erickson has a point that some on the left took action to cut back business dealings with Indiana:

Companies, celebrities and even local and state governments have come out in opposition to Indiana's controversial "religious freedom" bill. Several have even cancelled plans to do business in the state, citing the potential for discrimination against gays and lesbians.

PolitiFact's story contains mention of only one boycott: the one PolitiFact says Erickson said was coming from Apple. Tweezers.

PolitiFact claimed Erickson was making the point that Cook was acting hypocritically by boycotting Indiana while continuing to do business with nations like Iran. But if that was really Erickson's point then why did he dedicate only one line in his entire column to that point? Tweezers.

Erickson was making a broader point about the reaction by some on the left. He accurately characterized reaction of some on the left in threatening Indiana with economic sanctions. And in the process he made it sound like Apple had committed to a concrete set of such sanctions against Indiana. That's where PolitiFact's tweezers came in, for Cook had simply written a column criticizing Indiana's RFRA law.

But here's the hole in PolitiFact's fact check: Did Apple have any sponsored events occurring in Indiana that it might have cancelled, like some other companies had done? If not, is it safe to assume Apple would not have joined some other companies in canceling such events?

The Apple convention "MacWorld/iWorld" took place in the middle of March earlier this year. In San Francisco. A lost opportunity to teach Indiana a lesson?

What did PolitiFact do wrong, if anything?

As we pointed out, if Erickson was making a point about a real Apple boycott of Indiana, he had plenty of opportunity to mention Apple specifically. But he did not. He lumped Cook in with the boycott, which was somewhat misleading, but Erickson was setting the stage for a general criticism of the left's intolerance to resistance of its mainstreaming of homosexuality. And Cook's a fair example to match with the point of Erickson's column. PolitiFact missed the point of the column and the reference to Cook, using its tweezers to ding Erickson while not even acknowledging the reality of the boycott threatened by companies aside from Apple.

Tweezers.

Impartial tweezers?

Nah. PolitiFact's trick is to often treat parallel statements from liberals or Democrats with tongs. Sure, part of the statement is false, but part of it is true! So, "Half True" or something!



Footnote:

The Erickson response: Erickson defended his column by saying sometimes a tweet is just a tweet. PolitiFact gleefully made light of that excuse, noting that Erickson's column was not a tweet. Note to Erickson: What PolitiFact did was ridiculous, but you need to do better than that.

Correction: Struck "Florida" from the title, as PolitiFact National was responsible for the Red State fact check, not PolitiFact Florida.