PolitiFact's Hillary hilarity

PolitiFact's Pretzel of Play-Doh Principles

FBI Director James Comey's announcement on July 5, 2016 made clear that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton gave false reports of her handling of top secret and sensitive emails.

That created a problem for PolitiFact. PolitiFact had rated "Half True" Clinton's claim that she neither sent or received email marked as classified--at least not marked that way when it was sent. And PolitiFact just issued that rating on July 3, 2016 (Update July 7, 2016: PolitiFact has deleted the original story from its site, so find the archived version here).

Time for some steam-shoveled CYABS, courtesy of PolitiFact.

A scant two days later Lauren Carroll, yes the same Lauren Carroll from screen-captured byline, published an explanation of sorts, along the same lines as the editor's note that now accompanies the original story:

(After this fact-check published, FBI Director James Comey released details of the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. This claim will remain rated Half True, because we base our rulings on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time. But the FBI investigation clearly undercuts Clinton’s defense if she makes a similar claim again. You can read more about the findings of the FBI investigation here.)

Since we're talking about PolitiFact, "clearly undercuts" means if PolitiFact knew three days earlier what we all know now, Clinton would have received a mere "Mostly False" rating.

Let's expose the BS for what it is.

Note that PolitiFact declares that Clinton's false claim from July 3 will keep its "Half True" rating. PolitiFact invokes one of its Play-Doh principles to justify the decision:

Timing – Our rulings are based on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time.

We imagine the justification may appear legitimate to some. It is not legitimate.

It's reasonable to base a ruling on information available at the time when somebody makes a claim like Ann Hathaway affirming "the majority of Americans now support gay marriage." Obviously a fact checker can't judge the truth of that statement based on a poll published after the claim was made. Or on a poll where the findings were within the margin of error. Well, PolitiFact did both, but our readers get the point: How could Ann Hathaway justify her claim ahead of the poll, assuming its results were outside the margin of error? If it takes two years after her statement for the majority to occur, should we expect fact-checkers to make corrections at that late date? No. That would be silly. And it's almost as silly three days later.

The case with Clinton is far different.

Hathaway could not have a justified belief that a majority favored gay marriage back on March 15, 2011. PolitiFact could have justified calling Hathaway's claim false (it received a "Mostly True" rating).

Clinton, in contrast, had the very best position available to know whether she sent or received emails marked as classified. She had every reason to know the truth back in 2009-2013 as she served as secretary of state.

Clinton's is not the sort of case where PolitiFact's timing issue makes sense. The fact was established weeks ago that Clinton received classified emails. Apparently the only reason PolitiFact gave Clinton credit for a half-truth is because Clinton lied. The excuse occurs in Lauren Carroll's PolitiSplaining:

"I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified," Clinton said July 2, after Clinton was interviewed by the FBI as part of its investigation. "And there is a process for the review of material before it is released to the public, and there were decisions made that material should be classified. I do call that retroactively classifying."

Clinton’s statements like this left open the question of whether she sent or received classified information that was inappropriately left unlabeled — or that Clinton, as head of the department, failed to recognize and deal with information that should have been classified. Because of that obfuscation, we rated her claim Half True.

See, the evidence said Clinton's claim was false, but Clinton insisted it was true, obfuscating the facts. So PolitiFact had to give Clinton a "Half True" because of the obfuscation.

Got it?

The "Timing" principle makes up only half  of PolitiFact's pretzel of Play-Doh principles. PolitiFact has another (ill-advised, in our opinion) principle relevant to this case:

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.

How does that principle work in practice? Ask Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Reid, while serving as Senate Majority Leader, accused 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of not paying any taxes. PolitiFact found no evidence to support Reid's claim and so rated it "Pants on Fire." PolitiFact did not have access to Romney's tax returns showing that Reid was wrong. Rather, PolitiFact used the opinions of tax experts to decide the question.

Don't ask us why Reid's insistence he was right failed to net him a "Half True." Sometimes PolitiFact is so unfair.

The burden of proof principle should have applied in Clinton's case. Was there evidence supporting Clinton's claim? The only way to know was to have access to Clinton's emails. But Clinton made sure that happened only in part. PolitiFact ended up having to take Clinton at her word to give her that "Half True" rating.

In conclusion, don't buy PolitiFact's BS that it's basing the enduring "Half True" for Clinton on some type of real principle. Even if the wording of the principles doesn't change, the principles change in meaning to fit the need of the moment.

It's the type of thing that gives fact-checking, and PolitiFact, a bad name.



Updated this item July 6, 2016 with some grammar and formatting tweaks. 

Flashback Oct. 2010: "Just the Hacks, Ma'am"

Note:  Jeff D. originally posted this story about PolitiFact's treatment of Obama's campaign contribution policies back in October of 2010 on his personal blog.  With renewed focus on the Obama campaign's handling of credit card donations, we feel a review of PolitiFact's past treatment of the issue has renewed value.  The post was edited for style in this incarnation.



Few media outlets are as disingenuous and misleading as the supposed "fact checking" outfit PolitiFact. Despite making the claim that they "help you find the truth in American politics", the project is simply an extension of the unabashedly left-wing St. Petersburg Times editorial page, and their consistently flawed "Truth-O-Meter" shtick betrays this bias.

This week produced a fine example of the bizarre contortions this "unbiased" outfit will go through to defend Obama. On Tuesday they offered up RNC chairman Michael Steele and his comments regarding disclosure of campaign donors. Specifically, PolitiFact chose to rate Steele's charge of Obama's hypocrisy-

When President, then candidate, Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it. So don't give me this high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou attitude about special interests flooding the political marketplace.

With Obama's false narrative about the Chamber of Commerce, and Pelosi's hysterical warnings about plutocracies, Steele's comments were timely and spot on (for a change).

Was Obama asked to disclose donors, and did he refuse? It seems simple enough to verify.

It is a well documented fact that during the 2008 presidential campaign Obama refused to disclose the names of over 2 million donors. These particular donors contributed less than $200 each, and therefore fell below the reporting requirements. While Obama had no legal obligation to disclose them, he was under pressure to do just that. The reason was Obama had reduced the security safeguards on his campaign website that prevent fraudulent or illegal contributions. Obama claimed this was necessary due to the high volume of donations and the fact that the security measures slowed the process down. Fair enough.

Then erratic and abnormal donation patterns began to appear, including odd and un-rounded amounts (e.g. $133.29-suggesting foreign currency conversion), and curiously named donors like John Galt and Nodda Realperson, and of course Adolf Hitler and "Hbkjb,jkbkj".

In allowing donors to evade standard verification procedures, it became easier for people in Gaza, or even passionate supporters in Vermont, to circumvent donor disclosure laws. Basically, a single person using phony names could make multiple donations, with each individual donation under the $200 limit, but totaling tens of thousands of dollars in the aggregate, in order to avoid the reporting threshold.

These types of contribution shenanigans aren't unique to Obama's campaign. They happen to all politicians. What was unusual however was Obama's steadfast refusal to disclose the names of donors so independent journalists could vet the legitimacy of erroneous contributions.

Several groups started asking Obama to disclose the full list of donors in order to investigate these discrepancies. Obama refused.

The Republican National Committee went as far as filing a complaint with the FEC over the irregularities claiming Obama was accepting foreign cash. The Center For Responsive Politics asked Obama twice to disclose the names of "bundler" donors.

When the supposedly tech savvy Obama campaign finally responded with the ridiculous claim that compiling the list of names would be too technologically difficult, left-leaning Slate.com asked "So how come we were able to do it in a couple hours?"   Slate also noted:

Politically, there would be several advantages in releasing the names. Obama has campaigned on a platform of making government more transparent...

Ultimately the Obama campaign refused to disclose the names of over 2 million donors representing roughly $400 million in donations. In response to Obama's recent misleading attacks against the disclosure policies of Republican PAC's, the Wall Street Journal pointed out the hypocrisy in an editorial:

Mr. Axelrod told CNN the White House "believes deeply in disclosure"...But it wasn't always the case. During 2008, the Obama campaign didn't show any interest in going beyond the letter of the law in disclosing its donors to the general public. Despite public pleas from campaign-finance reform groups such as Common Cause and Democracy 21, Team Obama refused to...release names of donors who gave less than $200, even though such donors supplied about half of the $800 million the Obama campaign raised.

The bottom line is Obama accepted donations from contributors who were likely foreign nationals and he refused to publicly disclose the names. With all of this evidence it wasn't hard for PolitiFact to rate Michael Steele's claim......False?????

 PolitiFact tries to frame the "facts":

Despite the context of the conversation, Steele was not contending that the Obama campaign was asked to disclose donors to independent groups funding attack ads. That's a somewhat new phenomenon this election cycle. Trade groups and other 501 (c) groups were always allowed to keep donors anonymous. But the Supreme Court's Citizen United case upped the stakes with a ruling that allows corporations to contribute unlimited amounts to independent efforts to support or oppose a candidate.

What the what?!

PolitiFact correctly notes that Steele didn't imply that Obama refused to disclose donors of independent PAC groups. So why bring it up except to confuse the issue? And speaking of confusing the issue, what exactly does the Citizens United case have to do with Obama's 2008 campaign? Well, nothing except to throw the controversial ruling into the mix to get the base all fired up and attempt to connect two things that are otherwise unconnected. In this case it's diversionary and misleading.

Steele's statement begins and ends with calling Obama a hypocrite because in 2008 he refused to disclose his donors, and now Obama's complaining about right wing groups failing to disclose donors. All they need to determine is whether or not Obama refused to name names of donors. But if PolitiFact did that they'd have to call Obama a hypocrite.

Surprisingly, Politifact had the balls to cite Opensecrets.org to "prove" Obama's innocence while also taking a thinly veiled swipe at John McCain-

In fact, an analysis of campaign contributions by the Center for Responsive Politics found that the Obama campaign scored slightly higher than McCain's when it came to full disclosure of donors. The center found the Obama campaign fully disclosed 90 percent of the donations to the campaign, as opposed to 87 percent for the McCain campaign..

Those numbers are accurate. But what the unbiased, non-partisan, help you sort out the truth, fact checkers at PolitiFact fail to tell you is that those numbers don't include donor's who contributed under $200, which is the exact group of donors Steele was talking about. Oh, what Politifact also fails to mention in their snub was that unlike Obama, John McCain did release the names of donors who contributed less than $200. Why was this fact left out of the article?

What other gems did PolitiFact come up with?

We think Steele's comment is misleading in the context of responding to Democrats' complaints about tens of millions of dollars anonymously making their way into this election via independent groups like Crosssroads GPS. Steele's comments aren't directly related to that issue.

Huh? The argument is about transparency. How is it not a relevant criticism? And even if it was irrelevant, that doesn't make it false.

Again, it's not that the Obama campaign was asked for names of foreign donors and refused.

Well, except for the fact that that is exactly what happened.

 And finally they offer up their conclusion:

There was no issue of the Obama campaign willfully refusing to disclose the names of foreign donors.

Yes. There was. For PolitiFact to ignore the mountain of evidence that supports Steele's claim can only be a deliberate evasion of reality. PolitiFact's disingenuous "fact checking" can only be considered ideological cheerleading, and yet another example of media bias.

This latest disservice to facts is not new for PolitiFact. Bryan White over at Sublime Bloviations has been documenting their flawed and misleading ratings for a long time. His site is an invaluable source for exposing the misleading conclusions and flexible standards PolitiFact employs in their farcical "truth seeking" project.

Politics is full of misleading statements and outright lies. A truly unbiased source providing actual facts would be a welcome addition to political discourse.

But PolitiFact is not unbiased. They are simply a liberal opinion site riddled with inaccuracies, rhetoric, and ideology.

Falsely claiming to be objective purveyors of truth is wholly offensive, and PolitiFact should be exposed for the left wing ideologues they are.


Edit 10/09/12-Removed broken embed to video of Steele/MSNBC interview. It can still be found here. -Jeff

Edit 3/9/13-Removed link from words "warnings about plutocracies" for dubious source. - Jeff

Internet Scofflaw: "Decision-making, Dithering, and Sitting on Desks"

Internet Scofflaw has an excellent piece detailing PolitiFact's habit of ignoring the common usage of a word or phrase in order to make a rating fit a particular narrative.

In October of 2009 Robert Gibbs and Dick Cheney exchanged barbs over the handling of troop requests, and PolitiFact inevitably came to Gibbs' defense. Internet Scofflaw starts with some background, and explains why Gibbs made a bogus statement in the first place-

Last month, Robert Gibbs fired back at Dick Cheney’s (inarguable) accusation that President Obama is dithering about Afghanistan, saying:

[Gibbs:] "The vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president’s, for more than eight months, a resource request filled by President Obama in March."

Obviously Gibbs’s effort to tie in the vice president is rubbish, since the vice president is not in the chain of command. But what about the central accusation that the request sat on President Bush’s desk for more than eight months?

That final question is exactly what PolitiFact decided to rate. Not surprisingly, they rated Gibbs True-

The public doesn't have access to [U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David] McKiernan's formal request for more troops. But we know that he was talking about it publicly in September 2008, at least 4 1/2 months before the end of Bush's term. And McKiernan told reporters his request went back nearly to the start of his taking over as the top U.S. commander four months before that. That would suggest Gibbs' claim is correct that it had been sitting on desks in the White House for eight months. And so we rule his statement True.

Internet Scofflaw does the legwork PolitiFact fails to do and comes up with a more honest analysis of Gibb's statement-

If “sat on desks” meant the same thing as “was not fully fulfilled”, then Gibbs and the St. Petersburg Times would have a strong case. (Of course, by that definition, Gen. McChrystal’s request will probably be sitting on Obama’s desk forever, since all indications are that it will not be fully granted.) But that’s not what the phrase means. To “sit on a desk” means that no decision was made. That is not at all the case with Gen. McKiernan’s requests for troops.

As ABC News explains, McKiernan made several requests for troops over his months in command, totaling about 30,000 troops. Some of the requests were granted, but most were not, as the Surge in Iraq was making heavy demands. Instead, the Bush administration tried to get NATO to fill the gap. By the fall of 2008 it was clear that NATO was not going to come through, and with the Surge winding down, more US troops were available for Afghanistan and were sent. In March 2009, with Iraq quiet and troops withdrawals underway, the balance was sent by President Obama.

So what you saw from President Bush is the normal process of allocating scarce military resources where they are most needed. In other words, you saw decision-making. In March you saw the same from President Obama. But now, on the other hand, you see Obama unable to make a decision. Dithering.

It's important to note that PolitiFact's close relationship with ABC News didn't begin until 2010. That being said it's interesting that PolitiFact ignored ABC reporter Jake Tapper's conclusion on his blog (made the day prior to PolitiFact's rating)-

So Gibbs’s claim that for “eight months” McKiernan’s request for troops “sat on desks” isn’t accurate.

Internet Scofflaw ends with a question we find ourselves asking all the time-

What use is a fact checker that sides with the administration regardless of the facts?

You can read the full piece here.


*****
Bryan adds:

The Internet Scofflaw assessment largely agrees with one I published at the time.  Please excuse me as I risk upper extremity injury by patting myself on the back.