Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

James Taranto: "Bad-Faith Journalism"

The Wall Street Journal once again weighs in on PolitiFact following its "Lie of the Year" selection.

This cycle, James Taranto hits PolitiFact for its wrongheaded approach to fact checking:
We're not as troubled as Ponnuru is by the effect of PolitiFact, and the "fact checking" genre it exemplifies, on politics. We'd argue instead that it has a baneful effect on journalism.
Taranto's complaint about PolitiFact has much to do with the rationale Michael F. Cannon used to make his decision to withhold from PolitiFact the expert opinions it solicits from time to time.

Though Taranto goes a bit easy on PolitiFact for its past "Lie of the Year" failures, it's worth reading every word.

Friday, September 16, 2011

James Taranto: "Richard E. Coyote: The bumbling paranoia of the Obama re-election campaign."

If there were a New Coke Award for fact-checking websites the all-time champion would have to be President Obama's AttackWatch.com:

Image from Twitter

The website itself has gotten much more publicity for conservative mockery than it has any actual debunking. But what does this have to do with PolitiFact?

As it turns out one of its "sources" for getting out the facts is none other than our Pulitzer-possessing pals:

Image from Attackwatch.com (with magnification added)


Being a part of Obama's quest to right the wrongs of political dishonesty is certainly a noteworthy claim. And who is PolitiFact sharing such rarefied status with? None other than those stalwarts of objectivity, Talking Points Memo and former PolitiFact source Media Matters for America. The Three Musketeers of fact-checking indeed.

AttackWatch's source list wasn't lost on the capable James Taranto, who wrote a piece about AttackWatch in the Wall Street Journal:

And the site's substance is no less marvelously mockable than its style. The "News Feed" page rebuts three "smears" by linking to exceedingly weak left-liberal defenses.

Taranto goes on to flay the MMFA and TPM "facts" with ease, and are themselves worth a read. But for our purposes we'll stick to his review of our factastic friends. Specifically, AttackWatch highlighted PolitiFact's rating of Rick Perry's claim that the stimulus "created zero jobs":

Image from PolitiFact.com

AttackWatch sums up the key points of the PolitiFact piece:

At the most recent GOP debate, Rick Perry said President Obama “had $800 billion worth of stimulus” and “created zero jobs.”


“We say pants on fire,” reports Politifact.com. The site refers to four independent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and three private assessments of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to determine that anywhere between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus—“but certainly more than zero.”

Of course, like most PolitiFact articles, there's more to story, and Taranto quickly fills in the missing details:

What both sites omit is that, as we noted Sept. 2, the way these estimates are arrived at is not by counting actual jobs--of which, as the Romney chart points out, there are actually fewer than before the stimulus--but by assuming that so-called stimulus spending created jobs. That assumption may be accurate--it is possible that, as Obama and his supporters claim, even more jobs would have been lost absent the stimulus--but these estimates do not demonstrate it.

Ah, but PolitiFact does have proof that Perry's statement was false:
We even found Billy Weston, a Florida Republican who personally credited the stimulus for his new job with a private Riviera Beach pharmaceutical manufacturer.
PolitiFact lists the various estimates, then wraps up as follows:
Note the language "created or saved," which means not every one of those more than a million jobs count [sic] as "created," as Perry said.

But certainly more than zero. Ask Billy Weston.

Perry said "the first round of stimulus . . . created zero jobs." We say Pants on Fire.
Take that, Gov. Perry! The stimulus created one job!

While being listed as a source on AttackWatch doesn't itself indicate a bias, the proximity to two unabashedly liberal outfits, as well as being considered safe enough to be listed in the first place should certainly raise eyebrows. And it's not surprising that a talented writer like Taranto so easily destroys PolitiFact's flimsy defense of the stimulus. As we've seen time and again PolitiFact's ratings simply can't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

The rest of Taranto's piece is well worth reading, so go do that now.

You can also check out our previous review of Taranto's work here.




Edit: Added PF/Perry rating image, and quoted AW's summary directly. 9/17/11- Jeff

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Win a Pulitzer--for criticizing Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact

PolitiFact's defenders love to point to the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting PolitiFact took home for a collection of 13 stories published in 2008.  People apparently fail to realize the limited scope of judgment brought to bear by Pulitzer juries.

Fortunately, the Pulitzer folks have made it dead easy to turn that argument into a flaccid pretzel:  James Rago of the Wall Street Journal won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing--and part of the collection he submitted contained his column "PolitiFiction," where he criticized PolitiFact's choice for its 2010 "Lie of the Year."

Congratulations to Mr. Rago.

Rago's column on PolitiFact was one of the first stories highlighted here at PolitiFact Bias.

Hat tip to Big Gov Care.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

James Taranto: "'Death Panels' Revisited"

James Taranto's Wall Street Journal column goes back in time a bit to PolitiFact's biased selection of Sarah Palin's "death panel" post as its "Lie of the Year" for 2009.  Read it all, but the gist is here:
In truth, PolitiFact was more vulnerable to the charge of lying than Palin was, for its highly literal, out-of-context interpretation of her words was at best extremely tendentious.

I couldn't agree more.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Wall Street Journal-PolitiFiction, True 'lies' about ObamaCare

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page took aim at PolitiFact's 2010 Lie of the Year. They take exception with Politifact's suggestion that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a free market solution to health care issues-
"We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover," the editors of PolitiFact announce portentously. "'Government takeover' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees," whereas ObamaCare "is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market." PolitiFact makes it sound as if ObamaCare were drawn up by President Friedrich Hayek, with amendments from House Speaker Ayn Rand.
The Journal also joins a chorus of detractors that find PolitiFact's definition of "government takeover" spurious-
Evidently, it doesn't count as a government takeover unless the means of production are confiscated. "The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors," the editors write, and while "it's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers," they'll still be nominally private too.

In fact—if we may use that term without PolitiFact's seal of approval—at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered. The regulations that PolitiFact waves off are designed to convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands, with enormous implications for the future of U.S. medicine. All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. Sounds like a government takeover to us.
Finally, the editorial questions PolitiFact's ability to remain as non-partisan as they claim, and suggests they injected commentary into the Lie of the Year piece itself-
PolitiFact is run by the St. Petersburg Times and has marketed itself to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality. Like other "fact checking" enterprises, its animating conceit is that opinions are what ideologues have, when in reality PolitiFact's curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts and who is right in any debate.

In this case, they even claim that the government takeover slogan "played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health-care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections." In other words, voters turned so strongly against Democrats because Republicans "lied," and not because of, oh, anything the Democrats did while they were running Congress. Is that a "fact" or a political judgment? Just asking.
Read the full editorial here. Also check out letters to the editor in response to the column here. PolitiFact linked to the Journal's criticism on their Facebook page, and the comments from their fans are worth a read.