PolitiFact's ongoing double standard on correlation versus causation

PolitiFact does not advertise the fact that it applies standards inconsistently.

But it could do so without misleading people.

The liberal bloggers at PolitiFact, who pass themselves off as objective fact checkers, presented us with a new example the other day.

President Biden passed correlation off as causation. "Mostly True," said PolitiFact: Because, you know, the correlation was there.

PolitiFact's reasoning:

A key study backs Biden up. But the reality is millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines remained in circulation during the ban, and that makes it hard to tease out the law’s impact. 

We rate this claim Mostly True.

Of course it's child's play to come up with an example where somebody factually claimed a correlation and got PolitiDinged for it.

The Facebook post did not directly claim causation any more than did President Biden.

PolitiFact confirmed the claimed correlation, but guess what? There was no proof the higher mask usage caused the deaths! So, "False."

PolitiFact's reasoning:

A Facebook post said there’s a "‘positive correlation’ between higher mask usage and COVID-19 deaths."

The post was referencing a study that reviewed data from 35 European countries and found that in places where mask usage was higher, COVID-19 deaths were also higher. But the study’s author said there was no cause-and-effect found.  

Critics of the study said masking protocols were issued in response to high rates of transmission. So it would be expected that deaths would occur while masking would be in place. 

Public health officials recommend masking as one way to help reduce transmission..

We rate this claim False.

Parallel cases. Both claims asserted a correlation. In both cases PolitiFact substantially confirmed the correlation but noted that correlation does not prove causation. Nearly polar opposite ratings resulted. 

That's how PolitiFact rolls.

Literally false and the underlying point is false, therefore "Mostly True"

 Have we mentioned PolitiFact is biased?

Check out this epic fail from the liberal bloggers at PolitiFact (red x added):

PolitiFact found it "Mostly True" that most of the "killers" to which Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) referred tend to be 18, 19 years old.

What's wrong with that?

Let us count the ways.

In reviewing the context, Sen. Murphy was arguing that raising the age at which a person may buy a gun would reduce school shootings. Right now that threshold stands at 18 in most states and for most legal guns, with certain exceptions.

If, as Murphy says, most school shootings come from 18 and 19-year-olds then a law moving the purchase age to 21 could potentially have quite an effect.

"Tend To Be"="Tend To Be Under"?

But PolitiFact took a curious approach to Murphy's claim. The fact checkers treated the claim as though Murphy was saying the "killers" (shooters) were 20 years old or below.

That's not what Murphy said, but giving his claim that interpretation counts as one way liberal bloggers posing as objective journalists could do Murphy a favor.

When PolitiFact checked Murphy's stats, it found half of the shooters were 16 or under:

When the Post analyzed these shootings, it found that more than two-thirds were committed by shooters under the age of 18. The analysis found that the median age for school shooters was 16.

So, using this criteria [sic], Murphy is correct, even slightly understating the case.

See what PolitiFact did, there?

Persons 16 and under are not 18, 19 years old. Not the way Murphy needs them to be 18, 19 years old.

If Murphy can change a law that makes it illegal for most shooters ("18, 19 years old") to buy a gun, that sounds like an effective measure. But persons 17 and under typically can't buy guns as things stand. So, for the true majority of shooters Murphy's law (pun intended?) wouldn't change their ability to buy guns. Rather it would simply remain illegal as it is now.

To emphasize, when PolitiFact found "the media age for school shooters was 16" that effectively means that most school shooters are 17 or below. That actually contradicts Murphy's claim that most are aged 18 or 19. We should expect that most are below the age of 17, in fact.

If Murphy argues for raising the age for buying a gun to 21 based on most shootings coming from persons below the age of 16, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense because it would not change anything for the majority of shooters. They can't buy guns now or under Murphy's proposed law.

Calculated Nonsense?

By spouting mealy-mouthed nonsense, Murphy succeeded laying out a narrative that gun control advocates would like to back. Murphy makes it seem that raising the gun-buying age to 21 might keep most school shooters from buying their guns.

As noted above, the facts don't back that claim. It's nonsense. But if a Democratic senator can get trusted media sources to back that nonsense, well then it becomes a compelling Media Narrative!

Strict Literal Interpretation

Under strict literal interpretation, Murphy's claim must count as false. If most school shooters are 16 years old or younger then the existence of just one 17 year-old shooter makes his claim false. Half plus one makes a majority every time.

Murphy's claim was false under strict literal (hyperliteral) interpretation.

Normal Interpretation

Normal interpretation is literal interpretation, but taking things like "raining cats and dogs" the way people (literally) understand them normally. We've reviewed how normal interpretation should work in this case. To support a legitimate argument for a higher gun-buying age, Murphy needs to do so by identifying a population that the legislation would reasonably affect. The ages Murphy named (18, 19) meeting that criterion. And, because Murphy used some language indicative of estimation ("tend to be") we can even reasonably count 20 years of age in Murphy's set.

Expanding his set down to 17 doesn't make sense because changing the gun purchase age from 18 to 21 has no effect on a 17-year-old's ability to purchase a gun at 17.

But combining the shootings from 18, 19 and 20 year-olds cannot make up "most" of the school shootings if the media age for the shooters is 16 and at least one shooter was either 17 or over 20.

Murphy's claim was false given normal (literal) interpretation.

Biased Interpretation

PolitiFact used biased interpretation. The fact checkers implicitly said Murphy meant most of the shootings came from people under the age of 18 or 19, even though that makes nonsense of Murphy's argument.

PolitiFact's biased interpretation enhanced a misleading media narrative attractive to liberals.

Coincidence?

Nah. PolitiFact is biased to the left. So we see them do this kind of thing over and over again.

So it's not surprising when PolitiFact rates a literally false statement from a Democrat as "Mostly True."

Correction June 1, 2022: Fixed a typo (we're=we've)

CPRC: "Is Politifact really the organization that should be fact checking Facebook on gun related facts?"

The Crime Prevention Research Center, on Dec. 29, 2016, published a PolitiFact critique that might well have made our top 11 if we had noticed it a few days sooner.

Though the title of the piece suggests a general questioning of PolitiFact's new role as one of Facebook's guardians of truth, the article mainly focuses on one fact check from PolitiFact California, rating "Mostly True" the claim that seven children die each day from gun violence.

The CPRC puts its strongest argument front and center:

Are 18 and 19 year olds “children”?

For 2013 through 2015 for ages 0 through 19 there were 7,838 firearm deaths.  If you exclude 18 and 19 year olds, the number firearm deaths for 2013 through 2015 is reduced by almost half to 4,047 firearm deaths.  Including people who are clearly adults drives the total number of deaths.

Even the Brady Campaign differentiates children from teenagers.  If you just look at those who aren’t teenagers, the number of firearm deaths declines to 692, which comes to 0.63 deaths per day.

This argument cuts PolitiFact California's fact check to the quick. Instead looking at "children" as something to question, the fact-checkers let it pass with a "he-said, she said" caveat (bold emphasis added):

These include all types of gun deaths from accidents to homicides to suicides. About 36 percent resulted from suicides.

Some might take issue with Speier lumping in 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds as children.

Gun deaths for these two ages accounted for nearly half of the 7,838 young people killed in the two-year period.

Yes, some might take issue with lumping 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds in as children, particularly when checking Merriam-Webster quickly reveals how the claim stretches the truth. The distortion maximizes the emotional appeal of protecting "children."

Merriam-Webster's definition No. 2:

a :  a young person especially between infancy and youth
b :  a childlike or childish person  
c :  a person not yet of age

"A person not yet of age" provides the broadest reasonable understanding of the claim PolitiFact California checked. In the United States, persons 18 and over qualify as "of age."

Taking persons over 18 out of the mix all by itself cuts the estimate nearly in half. Great job, PolitiFact California.

Visit CPRC for more, including the share of "gun violence" accounted for by suicide and justifiable homicide.

Hoystory: "Abetting Gavin Newsom's Big Lie"

Reformed journalist Matthew Hoy today delivered an exquisite knockout to PolitiFact California over its gun-related fact checking.

California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and an associated gun-control advocacy group, Safety For All, claimed that gun dealers outnumber McDonald's in California. PolitiFact California rated that "True." Hoy covers the problems with that rating (which we also noted), and looks at how PolitiFact has since ignored Newsom's triumphant tweet saying that it's easier to buy a gun in California than it is to buy a Happy Meal.

Hoy notes that PolitiFact seems unconcerned over the leftward shove Newsom gives its already left-leaning reporting:

I wanted to see if Politifact would do anything about Newsom’s tweet. After all, it’s their reporting that’s being misused.

And a week later? Nothing new from Politifact on the topic. I emailed the reporter on the original fact check and the editor Tuesday evening. As of press time I had not received a response to my query of whether they would be fact-checking Newsom’s tweet.

Hoy's experience tracks with mine when I tried to get PolitiFact Missouri to fix a terminally flawed fact check. The fact checkers don't seem all that interested in the facts sometimes.

It's good use of your time to visit Hoystory and read his whole post.