The Burger King of Fact Checking

Some of the best anecdotal evidence of PolitiFact's liberal bias can be found by comparing its treatment of various statements. While PolitiFact's standards are laughably inconsistent, the victims of its inconsistency are overwhelmingly on one side of the political spectrum. Check out this recent rating PolitiFact published on Marco Rubio:

Image from PolitiFact.com

Here's PolitiFact's reasoning for Rubio's "Mostly False" rating:

Rubio appears to be making the case that he would have liked to have achieved his goals without having to shut down the government, and that he would have been happy to fund the government fully if doing so was paired with provisions defunding or delaying Obamacare. He may have felt that way, but both of the specific claims he makes are problematic.

His claim that "I never was in favor of shutting down the government" is undercut by two separate comments in which he supported a strategy of opposing Obamacare even if that meant rejecting a bill that would have kept the government open. And on the question of whether he "voted to fund the government fully," he arguably may have done so once, but took the opposite position nine times.

Given the political realities of the budget battle, Rubio's words and actions suggest he wanted Obamacare defunded more than he wanted to keep the government open.

Set aside for a moment that it's impossible to determine the  factual accuracy of Rubio's feelings. And let's forget the reality that if Rubio "voted to fully fund the government" even once, as PolitiFact admits he did, then his claim is an actual fact. For now, we'll just point out PolitiFact's logic: If Rubio had really wanted to keep the government open, he wouldn't have been so supportive of the specific tactics used.

For comparison, let's have a look at a different Rubio rating PolitiFact published back in February:

Image from PolitiFact.com

Back in those days, things were different for the Fact Chumps:

Rubio said the defense cuts known[sic] that are part of sequestration were Obama’s "idea in the first place."

That doesn’t tell the whole story -- particularly the fact that Obama does not favor these cuts. The White House proposed them as a means of driving the two sides to a compromise over the deficit, not as a real-world spending plan.

You see, in PolitiFact's world, the fact that the sequester cuts were "Obama's idea in the first place" is somehow less of a fact because Obama had good intentions. It was just a negotiating tool! Those coots in the GOP weren't supposed to call his bluff! 

In one case, Rubio bears the full responsibility for his actions, regardless of his stated motivations. Obama, on the other hand, bears no burden for his negotiating tactics if they don't turn out the way he wanted.

Facts are not like Burger King hamburgers.  You cannot have them your way.

What this all points out (again) is that PolitiFact operates more as a liberal op-ed than an actual fact checking unit. PolitiFact applies its standards inconsistently to fit whatever narrative they want to push. It's uncomfortable to accept Obama's role in the sequester, so they mitigate it. But they're not about to let Rubio get away with pretending he didn't want to shut down the government.

This is just another example in a long history of PolitiFact's incoherent and sometimes contradictory rulings. Until PolitiFact can adhere to a consistent set of standards it should be considered liberal punditry.

PolitiFact: We're not social scientists, but you sure can tell plenty about a candidate from our 'candidate report cards'

PFB editor Jeff D. took notice that new PolitiFact editor Angie Drobnic Holan recently affirmed PolitiFact's minimalist admission of its practice of selection bias (bold emphasis added):

PolitiFact's goal is not to end inaccuracy in political discourse, just to point it out for voters' information, Holan says. And the site doesn't cover everything politicians say, either in ads or interviews. "We're journalists. We pick statements based on what we think is most newsworthy,'' Holan says. "We fact check things that make people go 'Hmmm, I wonder if that's true.''

Not at all to our surprise, PolitiFact's announcement of its "PolitiPundit" project, dedicated to fact checking media figures and pundits the PolitiFact way, reiterates PolitiFact's intent to keep right on publishing "report cards" for the people and organizations it fact checks. 

It's the same old mixed message from PolitiFact:  No, it doesn't use basic scientific methods in choosing its stories.  Yes, readers should treat PolitiFact's "report cards" as though PolitiFact uses scientific methods.

"Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss."
--The Who

Hoystory: "Fact checking frauds"

Self-described "reformed journalist" Matthew Hoy's disgust with PolitiFact only occasionally bubbles over into blog posts at his blog, Hoystory, but this week we have a double helping.

Hoy starts out by pulling the rug out from under PolitiFact's "Pants on Fire" rating of Jeb Hensarling's claim that Congress leaves itself as the only ones not receiving subsidies on the "Obamacare" exchanges.

Hoy:

The point Hensarling was making, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain (which explains Politifraud’s problem), was not that no one was getting subisides, but that Congressional staffers, many of whom make north of $100,000 a year, would be the only ones at that income level who get subsidies from the federal government.

And Hoy continues by pointing out PolitiFact's failure to apply its own standards consistently in rating "False" an obvious use of hyperbole, this time when conservative bloggers mocked the Obama administration for closing the ocean as a result of the partial government shutdown:

In their effort to protect their lord and savior, Barack Obama, from himself, Politifarce conveniently disregarded two of  their own rules on what statements deserve their attention:

In deciding which statements to check, we ask ourselves these questions:

• Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.
  
• Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?

Visit Hoy's Hoystory blog for the whole takedown, and let this serve as a reminder that PolitiFact's problems are legion. We don't have the hours in the day to expose them all, so we're grateful to people like Hoy who take the time to expose PolitiFact's errors and distortions.

Out: Bill Adair. In: Angie Drobnic Holan

Yesterday, PolitiFact announced that Angie Drobnic Holan will replace Bill Adair as the organization's chief editor.  Adair, despite his difficulty in coming to grips with the concept of selection bias, was recruited by Duke University into the halls of academia.

What does this mean?

Well, it gives us an opportunity to see how PolitiFact performs with and without Bill Adair.  We expected/hoped to see some improvement in PolitiFact's performance when Adair departed.  But we got the impression that PolitiFact was even worse after Adair moved on to Duke.  Is it the effects of a rudderless ship, or do we have an early preview of the new PolitiFact since Holan has already assumed much of Adair's role?

We're inclined to give Holan a clean slate.  But we don't have our hopes up.  Holan's been inside the PolitiFact bubble since its initial inflation, and we have plenty of evidence of her participation in various PolitiFact missteps (more).


Comical note:

About an hour before PolitiFact published its announcement about Holan, I emailed J.D. saying "When are they announcing Holan's new role as PF head editor?"

Am I psychic?  No.  The timing of my question was hilariously coincidental, but I'd noticed a recent increase in search engine queries including Angie Drobnic Holan in the search terms.  It made sense to take that information as a sign that leaks had started to occur.


J.D. adds:

I'll go on record as saying PolitiFact has become brazenly more partisan since Adair's departure, something I didn't think was possible. I'm not sure if Adair was actually a half decent editor or simply better at hiding the St. Petersburg Obama Fan Club's bias. Either way the results have been comically awful. Whatever leash Adair was holding on Jacobson has been cut loose by Holan.

Regardless, we look forward to critiquing Holan's tenure as the Undisputed Arbiter of Fact. We'd also like to congratulate Bill Adair for the unforgettable impression he's making on Duke University's future Pulitzer winners.

The partisan view of bipartisanship

PolitiFact offers us implicit instruction in the partisan view of bipartisanship:

Image from PolitiFact.com

PolitiFact says "bipartisan" doesn't mean just one or two votes from one partisan group.  What does the dictionary say?

representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy.

Cruz is correct using the loosest definition of "bipartisan."  Why would PolitiFact fail to recognize that in its rating?  The rating arbitrarily discounts a clear element of truth in Cruz's statement.

In contrast, when President Obama claims Democrats and Republicans voted to keep the government open, PolitiFact finds that no Republicans supported the final bill that would have prevented a partial government shutdown.

Is Cruz objectively misleading his audience more than Obama misleads his?  Look in vain for the evidence in the fact checks of Cruz and Obama.

Right Wisconsin: "Kooyenga Rips PolitiFact Rating" (Updated)

State representative and C.P.A Dale Kooyenga responds via Right Wisconsin to PolitiFact's "Mostly False" rating of his statement that the legislature has used GAAP accounting principles for the past two years.

We're not professional accountants, but it looks like Kooyenga has a good case that PolitiFact Wisconsin's Dave Umhoefer gave his statement an unreasonable interpretation.

I have spoken to dozens of CPAs about your rating - they all agree your rating is simply wrong.  I would be happy to arrange a meeting with several CPAs from academia and the private sector to resolve the misinformation you printed in today's paper.  Ironically, your rating is simply wrong and I hope you are willing to revisit this matter. 

Read the whole thing, and then go get yourself some popcorn.

Update 9/27/2013

The MacIver Institute's MacIver News Service updates the story with a news video:

Gingrich/O'Malley: The Fix is In

With our previous post we took note of PolitiFact taking the unusual though not unprecedented step of unpublishing a story while preparing a revised version.

PolitiFact didn't take long to publish its update.  The new version was published the same day.  And, if readers will pardon the pun, the fix is in.

PolitiFact rated a battle of stats between one of the hosts of CNN's new "Crossfire" show, Newt Gingrich, and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, focusing mostly on a statement from Gingrich.  In the original version of the fact check, PolitiFact rated Gingrich "False."  We find a relic of the original rating in the text of the new version:

One of the disputes focused on the two states’ population growth, with co-host Newt Gingrich suggesting that Texas was growing and Maryland shrinking because of their economic performance.

Originally, PolitiFact thought Gingrich was saying Texas' population had grown while Maryland's shrank.  Since both states grew, PolitiFact gave Gingrich the "False" rating.  Here's PolitiFact's telling of what Gingrich said:

Gingrich: "Let me ask you this. As an objective fact, in the five years you've been governor, Texas has gained 440,000 people. According to the U.S. Census, Maryland has lost 20,000. Now, if we're having all this upward trajectory, why is Texas doing 22 times better in population migration over the last five years than Maryland?"

In context, Gingrich makes clear he's talking about population migration, not population growth.  Granted, one might initially think he was talking about population growth since he doesn't specify population migration until the end.  That's a good excuse for O'Malley responding with stats that don't fit Gingrich's question, but it's a poor excuse for fact checkers having more time to consider context.

In the new version of its fact check PolitiFact upgraded Gingrich to "Half True."

Why "Half True"?  Supposedly because of this:

Essentially, they’re both right -- they just used different measurements. O’Malley is right if you use overall population figures, while Gingrich is right if you look at migration from other states. We’ll split the difference and call this one Half True.

They're both right, but Gingrich gets a "Half True" because O'Malley is right about a different figure.  PolitiFact apparently splits the difference between Gingrich's "True" and O'Malley's "True" and Gingrich gets a "Half True" as a result.

Does it make any sense at all to lower Gingrich's rating because O'Malley offered a competing statistic that was also true?  We're not seeing it.

This looks like nothing less than a post-hoc rationalization for not doing a full reversal and giving Gingrich a "True" rating.  To justify a lower rating PolitiFact should explain something about the missing context we need in order to understand what Gingrich was saying.

PolitiFact unpublishes its judgment of the Gingrich/O'Malley match on CNN

The title says it all.  PolitiFact's article, judging by PolitiFact's Twitter feed, lasted about an hour.  PolitiFact, so far as we can tell, only informed its Twitter audience about the status of the article:  

We got some new evidence on the O'Malley-Gingrich Crossfire exchange. We've taken down our report while we evaluate.
— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) September 20, 2013

Those trying to link to the article via PolitiFact's Facebook page get a "Page not found" message.

This has happened before.  It's past time for PolitiFact to come up with a better method for handling these situations.

We'll look forward to comparing the old and new versions of the article, of course.