Showing posts with label Watchdog.org. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Watchdog.org. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Wisconsin Reporter: "Politifact Wisconsin politispins a half truth on tax hikes"

Via Watchdog.org, the same folks who brought us Ohio Watchdog and Virginia Watchdog, we have a critique of PolitiFact Wisconsin from the Wisconsin Reporter:
MADISON — Here’s a riddle for you: When is a tax hike not an increase? Answer: When Politifact, the self-proclaimed political fact-checking enterprise, decides to take the question for a spin.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel version of the national Politifact brand did so when it rated half-true Gov. Scott Walker’s Jan. 4 tweet: “Thanks to Washington, nearly everyone will pay more in taxes in 2013. Somehow people think it’s just the wealthy. It’s not.”
Reporter Ryan Ekvall nails PolitiFact on a couple of its traditional problems.  First, it grades Gov. Walker  "Half True" for a true statement.  Second, the justification rests on Walker failing to provide sufficient context--on Twitter, of all places.  Yes, Twitter, the social media site that limits comments to 140 characters.

Ekvall's critique is solid, so give it a read.

We look forward to more from Watchdog.org's Wisconsin Reporter.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Ohio Watchdog: "PolitiFact slams GOP spokeswoman for ‘literally true’ statement"

Jon Cassidy and Ohio Watchdog give us an 8th installment in its series on PolitiFact Ohio, this time examining PolitiFact's rating of the Ohio Republican Party and spokeswoman Izzy Santa (bold emphasis in the original):
Joe Guillen, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter writing for PolitiFact Ohio, was determined to find fault.

“The claim is literally true because it includes both Brown and his allies,” Guillen wrote, and he should have stopped right there. If it’s literally true, are we supposed to worry it might be figuratively untrue? It’s a number, not a simile.

It turns out that Guillen’s beef is that Santa’s declaration changed the subject.
It turns out that we have to rely on Guillen alone for the context of Santa's remarks.  Guillen insists that the context indicates Santa was talking about "outside money."  Part of Guillen's evidence for the PolitiFact story is Guillen's July 10 story for the Plain Dealer that likewise insists--based on a partial quotation and Guillen's paraphrase--that Santa was talking about "outside money":
Izzy Santa, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Republican Party, said Redfern’s criticisms are not credible because special interest groups supporting Brown “are plotting to spend over $13 million.”
Was Guillen's paraphrase justified?

Cassidy apparently has the text of the email Santa sent to reporters (reformatted quotation):
After Redfern’s July 10 press conference, she sent out an email to reporters:
Redfern is the least credible person to be commenting on outside spending when it comes to Ohio’s U.S. Senate race. Sherrod Brown and his special interest allies in Washington are plotting to spend over $13 million, with no end in sight. It’s clear that Brown and his supporters are having to spend this type of money because Brown’s out-of-touch record has exposed him to Ohioans as a 38-year politician and Washington insider who puts politics over people.

If the above represents the full context of Santa's response, then Guillen has misrepresented her.  Santa specifically wrote "Brown and his special interest allies" and Guillen Sentenceshopped that into "special interest groups" minus Brown.  Guillen's paraphrase, in other words, changed Santa's meaning.  And Guillen proceeds to fact check his paraphrase and blame it on Santa.

Guillen probably shouldn't expect more than a lump of coal for Christmas this year.

Rather than interpreting "Sherrod Brown and his special interest allies" contrary to its literal meaning, he should have inquired further as to how Santa justified calling Redfern "the least credible person" to comment on outside spending.

Visit Ohio Watchdog to read the whole of Cassidy's report.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Ohio Watchdog: the "PolitiFact or Fiction" series

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is onto PolitiFact, in the form of Watchdog Ohio and its seven-part (so far?) series "PolitiFact or Fiction."

Each of the seven parts reviews a questionable ruling by PolitiFact Ohio, with the focus falling on the U.S. Senate contest between incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican challenger Josh Mandel.

Part 1

The opening salvo by Jon Cassidy blasts PolitiFact Ohio for rating two nearly identical claims from Mandel differently.  One version received a "Half True" while the other garnered a "Mostly True."  Cassidy argues that both versions were true and explains the flaw in the reasoning PolitiFact used to justify its "Half True" rating in one case.

Part 2

This installment, again by Cassidy, criticizes PolitiFact's use of softball ratings in the context of its candidate report cards. The report cards graphically total PolitiFact's ratings for a given candidate and PolitiFact encourages readers to compare the report cards when deciding for whom to vote.

Cassidy:
Here’s Democrat Brown’s claim, which got a rating of “true”:
Rooting for the Red Sox is like rooting for the drug companies. I mean it’s like they have so much money, they buy championships against the working-class, middle-America Cleveland Indians. It’s just the way you are.
Yes, it's questionable whether Brown's statement is even worthy of a fact check.  Cassidy goes further, showing that PolitiFact's rating doesn't make any sense given Brown's failure to draw an apt analogy:
Brown didn’t pick a dominant pharmaceutical company for his comparison. He picked all pharmaceutical companies, as though we should root against an entire industry because of its size.
Touche.

Part 3

With the third installment Cassidy absolutely clobbers PolitiFact for a botched rating of Brown's claim regarding average student loan debt for Ohio graduates.  PolitiFact originally gave Brown a "True" rating but changed it to "Half True" after readers pointed out problems with the rating.  Brown claimed the average graduate owed about $27,000 on student loans but in fact that number only applies to students who had taken out student loans.  Cassidy did the calculations including the students without student loans:
Since 32 percent of Ohio graduates have no student debt at all, Brown overstated the average debt by half.
And that warrants a "Half True" on PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter."  Supposedly.

Part 4

As with Part 3, Part 4 hits PolitiFact Ohio for choosing a softball issue on which to grade Brown while also giving him an inflated grade.  Cassidy points out how PolitiFact's use of equivocal language gets Brown off the hook for using a very misleading statistic.  Brown ends up with a "Mostly True" from PolitiFact.

Part 5

The fifth installment adds another example in kind with the previous two.

PolitiFact uses equivocal language--well beyond using mere charitable interpretation--to help defend another of Brown's dubious claims.

Cassidy:
“You’d think it would be as easy as comparing the value of goods and services exported from the United States with those imported from other countries,” [PolitiFact Ohio's Stephen] Koff writes.

Note to Koff: it’s exactly that easy.
 Cassidy could have shown PolitiFact's spin more graphically than he did.

PolitiFact:
For January through September 2010, the most recent measurement available, the trade balance was a negative $379.1 billion. Assuming the monthly trends hold through December, this year’s annual trade deficit should reach $500 billion.

Divide that by the days of the year and you’d have a daily trade deficit of $1.37 billion a day. That’s 32 percent lower than Brown’s claim of $2 billion a day.
The accurate figure should always serve as the baseline.  PolitiFact uses Brown's number as the baseline instead, finding the real figure lower by 32 percent.  A 32 percent error doesn't sound so bad.  Use $1.37 billion as the baseline and it turns out that Brown's number represents an inflation of 46 percent.  In PolitiFact terms, that's "Mostly True."  PolitiFact tried to justify the rating based on higher trade deficits from prior to 2009.

Cassidy's right again that Brown benefited from grade inflation.

Part 6

With Part 6, Cassidy offers an example of PolitiFact Ohio nitpicking Mandel down to "Mostly True" for a plainly true statement.

Mandel claimed his election to the office of state treasurer came from a constituency where Democrats outnumber Republicans  2 to 1.  People would understand that to mean a count of voter registration records.

PolitiFact justified its ruling according to an expert's claim that voter registration numbers aren't "the best litmus test."  But think how much more context was missing from Sherrod Brown's statement in Part 5.  There's no comparison.

Part 7

In Part 7 Cassidy switches gears and defends one of Brown's statements from the truth-torturers at PolitiFact, but uses the minor slight as a contrast to yet another example of grade inflation.

Cassidy:
When Brown said “we buy 35 percent of all Chinese exports” and the actual number turned out to be 25 percent, they gave him a “half-true.”

We’re not sure which half. If you take out the middle four words, “we buy… Chinese imports” is true. You can argue Brown’s claim is close enough, or that it’s way off the mark, but whatever you call it, it isn’t half-true.
Looking at the original story we find PolitiFact again favoring Brown by using the errant figure as the baseline for comparison:
But while PolitiFact Ohio isn’t looking to play Gotcha!, a key tenet is that words matter. In this case, Brown’s number is nearly 30 percent greater than the correct figure.
Yes, words matter.  PolitiFact uses words that suggest the accurate figure was used as the baseline.  But the math tells a different story.  The 10 percentage point difference between 25 percent and 35 percent is nearly 30 percent of Brown's incorrect figure--the wrong one to use as the baseline.  In fact, Brown's number is 40 percent greater than the correct figure.

Summary

Overall, Cassidy did a fine job of assembling a set of PolitiFact Ohio's miscues and explaining where the ratings went wrong.  When PolitiFact botches the math on percentages, as we point out, it helps out Sherrod Brown all the more.

We appreciate Ohio Watchdog's contribution toward holding PolitiFact to account.