Michael F. Cannon: "Why I'm Boycotting PolitiFact"

Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute has often served PolitiFact as an expert source.  Today he explained why he no longer cooperates with PolitiFact in that capacity:

Reporters at PolitiFact.com have used me as a resource half a dozen times or so when fact-checking something someone said about health care reform. Sometimes we disagree about where the truth lies, but I’ve always been happy to help. That changed recently, and I should let PolitiFact’s reporters know why.

read it all

Cannon's boycott is conditional:   He will lift it after he is satisfied that PolitiFact has addressed problems with its past two "Lie of the Year" selections.

I'll quote one more important passage, though Cannon's column ought to be read completely through:

Some conservatives think PolitiFact is a left-wing outfit. I don’t think that’s true, and I have defended PolitiFact against that charge. I believe that PolitiFact’s reporters are earnestly doing their best to get at the truth. But there’s a tension between that belief and these errors. Whether PolitiFact recognizes and addresses that tension will tell us a lot about PolitiFact.

I share Cannon's assessment.  It is extraordinarily unlikely that PolitiFact intends to do its fact checking any way other than impartially.  But on the other hand it's hard to reconcile that premise with some of the things PolitiFact puts to print and with some of the errors PolitiFact refuses to acknowledge.

I predict that Cannon will not end up lifting his boycott.  PolitiFact is too invested in its model, given its relative success, to risk tampering with it.

But I'd love to be proved wrong.  Just like Cannon wouldn't mind lifting his boycott under the right conditions.

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.

James Wigderson: "We rate it a full flip for Politifact"

Wisconsin's James Wigderson serves up a potent shot at PolitiFact at his Library and Pub.  After noting PF's correction of a "Flip-O-Meter" piece offered no hint of the rationale for changing the rating, Wigderson makes a helpful recommendation:

Perhaps after reversing this Politifact review the newspaper will take the opportunity to look back at some of the other “Politifacts” to test their accuracy. Some of them, written about candidates on both sides of the aisle, were just awful examples of bias. (The Politifacts on Charlie Sykes and Jim Sullivan spring to mind.)

PolitiFact's penchant for stuffing failed stories down the memory hole represents a disturbing trend for an outfit that is already stingy with its transparency.  In the midst of 2010 PolitiFact revised a flawed story but kept the old version archived.  That seems better in terms of transparency.  Was it a change of policy or the same old chaos we're accustomed to seeing from PolitiFact?

Do stop by Wigderson's Library and Pub to savor the entire (brief) post.

Bewz Newz 'n' Vewz: "One Of These Facts Is Not Like The Others"

PolitiFact Bias collaborator Jeff Dyberg illuminates an additional dimension of PolitiFact's selection bias problem through an examination of the treatment given Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).  Kucinich performed some notable gum-flapping over how President Obama operated outside the law with his Libyan intervention.  PolitiFact ignored the accusation and instead dug up Kucinich's month-old comment that "To my knowledge, none of these existing programs appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse."

Jeff's summary of the problem:

What this teachable moment has exposed is that PolitiFact's bias isn't always as obvious as simply picking more statements on the left or the right or rating one group more harshly than the other. Their bias is evident in the specific claims and specific people they choose to rate as well as the things they choose to ignore.

This type of bias is one of the toughest to quantify, but examples such as the one Jeff offers nonetheless help build a cumulative case showing PolitiFact's affinity for the political left.

You can read the whole article here.

Big Journalism: "2012 Preview: Who Will Fact-Check the Corrupt MSM’s Cherished PolitiFact?"

Big Journalism's John Nolte forecasts PolitiFact's role in the 2012 election, using a rambling account of the organization's checkered past.  Nolte's dead-on with his assessment that PolitiFact turned popular liberal opinion into "fact" with its "Lie-of-the-Year" selections and provides music to our ears with his call to hold PolitiFact to account:

We are all activists now. Get involved. Call these people out. Spread the word.

At the risk of sounding corny, this is about our country and it is everyone’s job to watch the self-appointed Watchmen.

Hear, hear.

Dual hat tips

Hat tips to Big Journalism's John Nolte and WTMJ's Charlie Sykes for posting hotlinks to our site.  We also appreciate the Twitter connections.

PolitiFact keeps flubbing up faster than we can write, so watch for updates.  And those of you who are so inclined, join in on the national critique of PolitiFact.  If you blog a critique of PolitiFact, drop us a line about it.

Charlie Sykes: "Is PolitiFact's Dave Umhoefer a Liar, Liar?"

Wisconsin radio personality Charlie Sykes of WTMJ in Milwaukee has discovered the hypocrisy inherent in PolitiFact's evaluation system.  Sykes received a "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact Wisconsin for his claim that the Kloppenberg side outspent the Prosser side by a 3:1 margin in the recent Wisconsin supreme court election.

Sykes put his finger right on the problem ("he" is PolitiFact writer Dave Umhoefer, "they" is PolitiFact):

So, in other words: he did NOT verify the Brennan Center numbers. Instead they relied on an overtly left wing source's "estimate." (Try to imagine the JS ever relying on a Koch Bros. financed group's uncorrobrorated estimates to label a liberal a "liar, liar."

They did NOT verify the Kloppenburg numbers.

They did not include possibly big outside spending by Big Labor.

And they decline to offer any other hard data to support their story... the sort of documentation they demand from others and which they use to declare that others are "liars, liars."

Ironic.

(all caps emphasis in the original)

Though evidently quite ready to admit a error if proved, Sykes makes a good case in noting that PolitiFact holds a different standard for its claims of truth compared to those whose statements it rates.

It's called hypocrisy, and it is expressed directly in PolitiFact's statement of standards:

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.

...except when the person making the statement is a PolitiFact writer.

Sykes' story is especially instructive as he quotes his correspondence with PolitiFact staffers, so please read the whole thing.  My experience has been similar to his.  PolitiFact staffers do not readily acknowledge problems with their process or results.

LifeNews.com: "Politifact Misleads in Bashing Jon Kyl Over Planned Parenthood"

LifeNews.com, an obviously pro-life/anti-abortion (depending on your POV) organization, published a criticism of PolitiFact's review of a recent statement by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) that jibed considerably with one I published very recently:

“Planned Parenthood calculates the numbers by services provided, rather than dollars spent,” the web site said. “By this tally, abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, which is the most recent year for which the group is reporting statistics. And that would make Kyl’s statement way off. Kyl has vastly overstated the share of abortions.”

Kyl’s office responded to the criticism in a statement saying his remarks were meant to “illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions.”

But Planned parenthood’s own figures show Kyl was right in the sense that Planned parenthood is primarily an abortion business and, for pregnant women, abortion is the only option they essentially present.

Do remember that quality content ought to trump charges that LifeNews.com is biased on the topic.  Just as low quality content from PolitiFact contributes to the impression that PolitiFact is biased on the topic rather than impartial.