The Weekly Standard calls PolitiFact on another faulty entry

Working at this blog part time as I do, I allow plenty of opportunities for commentary to slide.

A recent PolitiFact entry about the economic impact of the cap and trade carbon tax raised red flags for me, but I realized that my incomplete grasp of the economics involved would make it hard for me to evaluate the PolitiFact analysis without a disproportionate time investment.

So the biggest of hat tips to the good folks at The Weekly Standard, who kept after the expert source used by PolitiFact and undermined the foundation for their Truth-O-Meter rating ("Pants on Fire").

The explanation is sufficiently technical so that I suggest reading the account at the Standard. But the response from representatives of PolitiFact is worth quoting and noting.

After corresponding with Reilly, I contacted Politifact's reporter Alexander Lane and editor Bill Adair to ask if they would correct their report that the GOP's estimate of cap and trade's cost is a "pants on fire" falsehood.

Lane wrote in an email: "The detail of my piece that you think needs correcting seems to be in flux...". The "detail" to which he referred was Reilly's admission that the real cost per household would be $800--not $215 per household as Politifact originally reported.

The story goes on to recount other instances of apparent carelessness in the PolitiFact entry, then reports another exchange with PolitiFact:

When I asked Bill Adair over the phone last week if Politifact would correct its report, he didn't answer the question and ended our conversation by saying: "You're getting me at a really bad time. I would love to talk about this any time tomorrow." Adair did not reply to further inquiries.

Of course not. He was probably busy editing more shoddy fact-checking and preparing for the Pulitzer Prize party.