John Bartosek responds

Yesterday I sent an e-mail query to PolitiFact, intended for the e-mail boxes of editor John Bartosek and writer-researcher Lukas Pleva.

I asked for the reason why PolitiFact, given its non-partisan nature, would focus on Rep. Alan Grayson's claim that the U.S. ranks No. 50 in life expectancy worldwide rather than the adjacent claims that the U.S. ranks "just below" Albania and ranks "dead last" in math test scores (background and text of my message).

Bartosek's prompt reply arrived in my e-mail box at 9:39 a.m. EDT.

Fascinating, to borrow a line from Mr. Spock:

Thank you for your recent note about PolitiFact. I'm happy to give you some background on how we work. We focus on a single statement, as often as we can, so that we're making a ruling on only one comment at a time. We think that helps keep us focused and makes things clear. We have, in the past, tackled various education issues, including the state's high school graduation rate being below the national average (True), the state being 50th in education spending (Half True), and Florida teachers being paid $5,000 below national average (Mostly True). It wasn't bias in not picking the comment about math ranking, it was simply the chance to look at another topic (health care) that we hadn't touched on lately.

Bartosek wasn't done, but I need to cut in.  Deciding to make the story about one part of Grayson's comment instead of about another part of the same comment is selection bias by definition.  Whether or not it represents a political bias in addition remains an open question, though we now have Bartosek on record denying the latter type of bias occurred.

Bartosek's assertion that PolitiFact deals with one claim at a time was ridiculous on its face.  I've run across numerous counterexamples, and I sent a couple of them to him in my e-mail reply.

Note that through this point Bartosek has sought to excuse ignoring Grayson's comment about that math ranking.  What about "just below Albania"?  That claim is part of Grayson's statement about U.S. life expectancy and thus, according to Bartosek, on the subject of "health care."  Bartosek tackles that next:

I think Rep. Grayson's comment about Albania was an example of his bigger point about the U.S. ranking worldwide, and we chose to focus on that broader point, rather than writing just about Albania. (Just FYI, the U.S. came in just above Albania in both the 2009 and 2010 CIA Factbook rankings, meaning our life expectancy is slightly higher than that country. The difference is very small.)

This paragraph from Bartosek is funnier every time I read it.

Undoubtedly, Grayson's comment about Albania was an example of his bigger point about the U.S. ranking worldwide.  But it was wrong!  And that fact got swept under the rug!  Bartosek then says that the decision was made to focus on the broader point rather than write "just about Albania."  But what prevents focusing on the broader point while also setting the record straight about Albania falling consistently below the United States in the rankings? 

As for Bartosek's "FYI," the CIA Factbook provides the best case for Albania ranking close to the U.S. in life expectancy.  The other two sources cited in the story told a different story, and Bartosek's claim about the 2009 CIA Factbook remains open to question.  The writer, Lukas Pleva used Wikipedia as a secondary source rather than going to the CIA Factbook itself.  This alternative source tells a different story and which is supported by the published version of the CIA Factbook remains an open question.

"The difference is very small."  Right, but the difference is very small in both directions.  Take the difference in the rankings published by the Population Reference Bureau (a source cited in the PolitiFact story) between Albania (No. 59, avg. 75 yrs) and the U.S. (No. 45, avg. 78 years) and add it to the U.S. total.  Average life expectancy of 81 years would put the U.S. up in the neighborhood of Canada (No. 15, avg. 81 years).

Even for the Wikipedia version of the 2009 CIA Factbook figures most favorable to Grayson, the U.S. could hop from No. 50 to No. 47 based merely on the difference (.15 years) with Albania:

Though it appears possible on its face that the United States could make up the difference with No. 1 simply by a change in the national diet, PolitiFact justifies the focus of the story because it supposedly concerns health care.

Sure, not much separates the U.S. from Albania in years of life expectancy.  But not much more than what separates the U.S. from Albania separates the U.S. from a top 10 ranking, all the cited sources considered.

Bartosek's response does little to dispel the appearance of political bias.  On the contrary, it offers evidence of a considered selection bias with possible roots in political bias.  In addition, the claim that PolitiFact sticks with one subject "as often as we can" is hard to swallow given the contradictory evidence.  "(A)s often as we can" apparently boils down to subjective news judgment and provides an avenue for the influence of political bias.

As I've said often in the past, I do not believe that PolitiFact staffers intentionally inject their political bias into their work.  They simply take inadequate precautions against that occurrence.


Afters

I decided early not to use the full text of my e-mail reply to Bartosek in this post.  That decision had nothing to do with my leaving out a "the" near the end of my message:

The average reader has no conception that a fact checking outfit will ignore the truth values for dubious adjacent claims merely to help ensure that [the] topic of health care (?) gets its due.

That's not to rule out the existence of other typos I may have missed on review.