Virginia Watchdog: "State GOP criticizes PolitiFact for bias"

Virginia Watchdog takes note of the Republican Party of Virginia's critique of PolitiFact Virginia.  We at PolitiFact Bias reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the GOP effort last month.

The story by Jon Cassidy and Kenric Ward counts as the most complete reporting yet regarding the GOP's lengthy jab at PolitiFact Virginia.  We found comments by Rick Edmonds of PolitiFact's owner, the Poynter Institute, of particular interest:

Edmonds speculated that Republicans come in for more criticism because they are the party in control of state government — not because of any built-in political bias by PolitiFact.

“Naturally, the rulings focus on the majority party,” he reasoned. “It’s also possible that one side is making more outrageous or newsworthy claims that attract attention.”

If the party in control of the government receives the most ratings then shouldn't PolitiFact National show a marked lean toward Democratic Party claims for 2009?  Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency. 

Edmonds' claim resists clear falsification at the state level mainly because PolitiFact mostly runs state operations in states controlled by Republicans.  And not all state operations freely allow the numbers to give the impression of bias, as we discovered from a figure associated with PolitiFact Georgia.

One wonders why Edmonds fails to mention the possibility of selection bias.


Afters:

PolitiFact Bias has improved the case against PolitiFact's impartiality with the publication of our first research project earlier this month.

The Republican Party of Virginia vs. PolitiFact Virginia

We promised to take a closer look at the Republican Party of Virginia's challenge to PolitiFact Virginia's objectivity.

The document works on some levels and not on others.  The best evidence it contains showing PolitiFact Virginia's lack of objectivity comes from anecdote and circumstantial evidence.

Open Letter

The "open letter" section comes across well, but almost immediately afterward the document suffers from accuracy issues. 

Overall Proportions

The graph of rulings by number and by party is off, as pointed out by the semi-daily clockwork accuracy of Karen Street:  The "False" column for Democrats is too short.  The document uses the correct figure for "False" rulings in determining the proportion of "False" statements attributed to Republicans but incorrectly asserts that PolitiFact "ruled disproportionately against Republicans" in that category.  The 40 percent figure used in the comparison is disproportionately low compared to the 48 percent baseline derived from the listed numbers.

Individual Proportions

The criticism based on the individual breakdown mostly rings true.  Virginia has two Democrats in the U.S. Senate.  How does ex-senator George Allen warrant more fact checks than both combined?  Complaints about the attention on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor don't carry much weight.  Cantor serves as a major voice for congressional Republicans.

The Weekend Dump

While it served as an intriguing idea to criticize PolitiFact Virginia for the timing of its stories, we were instantly skeptical of this claim.  News dumps by the government are fundamentally different from the news reporting cycle, yet the GOP document relies on the comparison.  Here's the problem:  Dumping stories over the weekend can put them in the Sunday newspaper, which is often the most widely read portion of a major newspaper.  No case is made for the significance of a weekend dump for either a daily paper or an Internet news site.  If the Richmond Times-Dispatch literally publishes the most positive Republican stories in its least popular editions then the Virginia GOP may have a legitimate gripe, but that evidence does not appear in this document.

Case Studies 1 & 2

The case studies hit the mark more often than not, pointing out a good number of times where PolitiFact Virginia used stilted reasoning to reach conclusions unfavorable to Republicans.

Comparative Case Study

The argument from the case study makes PolitiFact Virginia's actions look fishy, but it's far from conclusive without better evidence.  It does contribute to the stated aim of the letter, however.  This section is at its best when criticizing individual rulings from PolitiFact Virginia.

Appendix starting on Page 54

From Page 54 through the end of the 86-page document, the Appendix simply gives a rundown of PolitiFact Virginia's ratings without any commentary or criticism.  It's hard to see the point, other than to help produce stories about an 86-page criticism of PolitiFact Virginia.  If that was the case, the mission was accomplished.

In summary, the report scores with the anecdotes and not much else.  The presentation softens the potential impact.

The Washington Post: "PolitiFacters respond to ‘weekend dump’ allegations"

Erik Wemple of the Washingon Post delivers the third in his series following the current dust-up between the Republican Party of Virginia and PolitiFact Virginia.

Wemple, as he promised, visits the GOP's claim that the timing of PolitiFact Virginia stories appears to maximize the impact of negative stories while burying positive ones.

Wemple:

As detailed in Part One of this extensive series, the Republican Party of Virginia is claiming that PolitiFact Virginia, which is run from the offices of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, discriminates against Republican politicians in the most insidious of manners: It times positive fact-checks of Republicans for the weekends, when people aren’t logged on, and “saves” the negative stuff on Republicans for high-traffic mid-week slots. That’s the claim.

Wemple's off the mark.  The document doesn't claim that the stories are deliberately timed.  Rather, it claims that the timing of the stories yields a discriminatory result.  The discrepancy between Wemple's report and the reality of the GOP document is easy to see in the passage Wemple quotes:

Here’s a relevant excerpt from the 86-page slameroo report that the Republican Party of Virginia compiled on PolitiFact Virginia:

PolitiFact Issued Only Two “False” And One “Pants On Fire” Ruling On Republican Statements During The Weekend (Starting After 5 P.M. On Friday), Saving 37 “Mostly False,” “False,” “Pants On Fire,” And “Full Flop” Reports To Be Issued Between Monday And Thursday.

The GOP claim is obviously couched in objective terms and makes no judgments about PolitiFact's intent.  The claim concerns the result, not the intent.

And, of course, the PolitiFact response is a total joke.

Rick Thornton of the Richmond Times-Dispatch says “We typically print in the newspaper PolitiFact rulings on Sunday and Monday . . . . We post our rulings online pretty much as soon as they’re done . . . . A number of our rulings on both sides are on Fridays because they’re being finished up on Friday for Sunday.” 

That doesn't answer anything.

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair, who heads the national operation, says "It’s ridiculous to suggest that any of our PolitiFact sites schedule publication of some items to get smaller audiences."

Adair gravitates directly toward the same straw man that fascinated Wemple.  If the GOP document has the facts right and the good gets the small audience while the bad gets the big audience then the discrimination exists regardless of whether the PolitiFacters possess an awareness of the fact.  And one would think that PolitiFact Virginia would know about the alleged problem from its communications with the RPV.

Neither Thornton nor Adair addresses the charge from the RPV.  And it's a pity that Wemple reported it inaccurately.

Why is this so hard?  If the Sunday paper has more readers than weekday papers then PolitiFact can give an objective response to the charge from the RPV:  Those weekend stories often may have the larger audience.  If that defense isn't accurate then perhaps admit that the RPV has a point but assure everyone that it wasn't on purpose.

Is PolitiFact dissembling for the sake of a CYA strategy?   Yeah, could be.  In any case, the responses from PolitiFact scarcely count as serious.  And we let these people check facts for us?

The Washington Post: "Virginia Republican Party to PolitiFact: Don’t bother ringing!"

The Washington Post's reporter/blogger Erik Wemple updates his reporting on PolitiFact Virginia and the critique from the Republican Party of Virginia.

It turns out--no big surprise here--that the relationship broke down between the Virginia GOP and PolitiFact reporters.  The Republican Party of Virginia joins Wisconsin Democrats in giving their state's PolitiFact franchise the silent treatment.

Wemple may have tipped his ideological hand by referring to the GOP's critique as a "screed."  Sure, he can claim he just meant it was a long critique.  But if he does that then it makes his use of the term appear redundant ("enormous screed").  Careful, Mr. Wemple.

State political parties cutting off their cooperation with a fact checker?  Looks like the making of a news story.

The Washington Post: "Virginia Republican Party publishes huge attack paper on PolitiFact"

Erik Wemple and the Washington Post stand as the first mainstream media entities, not counting PolitiFact Virginia itself, to weigh in on the massive pushback PolitiFact Virginia received yesterday from the Republican Party of Virginia:

The Virginia Republican Party has compiled an attack on PolitiFact’s Virginia operation that is virtually unbloggable. An 86-page document with a cover page stating, “TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF POLITIFACT VIRGINIA’S QUESTIONABLE OBJECTIVITY,” it starts with a two-page memorandum and a three-page table of contents. Even Rachel Maddow has never produced a PolitiFact critique as exquisitely formatted.

Exquisite formatting makes less gratuitous use of capitalization according to our tastes, but we credit Wemple for zeroing in on one of the most intriguing aspects of the ponderous critique:

To narrow the scope of its inquiry, the Erik Wemple Blog will start out by exploring only the most fascinating of the Republican Party’s allegations — namely, that PolitiFact Virginia attempts to bury good ratings about Republicans and tout bad ones.

The Virginia GOP may qualify as the first to notice a bias in the timing of the stories, so that makes it a good angle for Wemple's initial approach.

Journalists are still missing the big story:  No mainstream fact checker receives anywhere near the criticism that PolitiFact receives.  There's a story in there.  And it's an important one.

Big Journalism: "VA GOP Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way"

Big Journalism's John Nolte didn't take long to weigh in on the Republican Party of Virginia's challenge to PolitiFact Virginia's objectivity:

PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough.

Nolte's spirited rant is worth a full read, but we'll register some qualified disagreements.

If PolitiFact is a cancer it's often benign.  The fact checks are in the ballpark enough so that radical surgery probably doesn't serve as the answer.  And, in fact, the response from the Republican Party of Virginia probably doesn't serve as the model response, largely because it's too late to serve as a timely corrective for any misinformation it detects and because its format discourages people from reading it (PFB will give it a closer look over time).

On the good side, this type of response from the party does a great deal to bring attention to PolitiFact's many issues, which are best highlighted by research like that of Eric Ostermeier and collected evaluations like the recent set from Ohio Watchdog.

It's pretty easy to find good criticism of PolitiFact.  The challenge comes from getting the information in front of the public to increase people's awareness that PolitiFact cannot be trusted in its current form.

Virginia GOP vs. PolitiFact Virginia

The Republican Party of Virginia yesterday published an 86 page criticism of PolitiFact Virginia's objectivity.

We'll have plenty more to say about the specifics as we sift through it all, but here's a small taste of the lengthy document:

We believe the objective evidence assembled here provides ample reason for the public to question PolitiFact Virginia’s objectivity. Based on the compelling data contained herein we believe any Republican official or candidate in Virginia would be justified in publicly indicting PolitiFact Virginia’s pattern of bias, and publicly refusing to participate in or cooperate with their analyses unless and until such time the Richmond Times-Dispatch can substantively and publicly address the underlying concerns about their PolitiFact Virginia team’s lack of objectivity. Each official and candidate can make their own decision on participation with PolitiFact Virginia going forward.

PolitiFact Virginia was not slow to respond, though their response was weak even by PolitiFact standards.

A portion of the rejoinder from PolitiFact Virginia:

On Tuesday, the Republican Party of Virginia sent an "open letter to the commonwealth" accusing PolitiFact Virginia of being biased against the GOP in our rulings.

We disagree.

That's the gist of it, and the evidence supporting PolitiFact's disagreement is marginally greater than what occurs in the above quotation.  It doesn't begin to answer all the points in the GOP critique.