Transparently opaque

Content has been reexamined, new sources have been sought, and more reporting assigned. The result has been outstanding journalism, which you will see in the coming days, weeks and months. The work will be as transparent as possible. The writing will be lively.

So wrote Providence Journal editor Thomas E. Heslin regarding his paper's experience upon entering its partnership with PolitiFact, the fact checking enterprise starting at the St. Petersburg Times.

How transparent is "as transparent as possible"?

Well, PolitiFact provides a list of sources used for the story.  Many of them permit the reader to double check and verify with their own eyes.  Others do not, such as e-mail correspondence and telephone interviews.  In the latter cases the reader must rely on the fairness of the reporter.  As for the reporters, they probably have their own biases--but most news organizations strongly discourage reporters from making their political leanings known to the public.  That type of transparency, it is thought, erodes confidence in the objectivity of news reporting.

Another aspect of reporting remains almost always hidden from the public:  the choice of which story to cover and what portion of the story deserves focus.

I recently performed a critical review of a fact check story on Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).  Grayson, during a television appearance, made three questionable claims in the space of a few sentences.  Grayson claimed that the U.S. ranks No. 50 worldwide in terms of life expectancy, the U.S. ranks just below Albania in life expectancy and  the U.S. ranks "dead last" in math test scores.

All three of Grayson's claims were on thin ice, though PolitiFact justified rating Grayson "Mostly True" by ignoring the fact that the ranking Grayson claimed came from a list of well over 200 territories and sovereign nations.  Those aware of the approximate number of sovereign nations (about 195) were likely to take Grayson's claim to mean that the U.S. fell in the fourth quintile.  The U.S. belongs in the top group instead of the runnerup group when compared to other sovereign nations rather than competing with itself (Puerto Rico) or with other non-sovereign territories like Guernsey.

My fact check found that Grayson's latter two statements were assuredly false.  So what accounted for the editorial decision to ignore those claims in favor of the chosen one?  There's really only one way to find out, and that is to ask PolitiFact.  I sent the following e-mail to the editor and writer/researcher of the story:

Dear Mr. Bartosek, Mr. Pleva,

Are you able to shed any light at all on the editorial decision to focus on the portion of Rep. Alan Grayson's statement regarding the No. 50 rank in life expectancy rather than the portion placing the U.S. "just behind" Albania or his statement about the U.S. ranking "dead last" in math?  It's very easy to imagine political bias behind the decision as to which part of the statement to rate on the "Truth-O-Meter" since the latter two statements appear exceptionally difficult to justify.  But PolitiFact is non-partisan.  So what was the real reason for the focus on the No. 50 ranking, please?

Do I expect an answer?  No, I do not.  It seems that in a best-case scenario the PolitiFact staff can simply claim that the two false claims did not seem like an interesting story nor relevant to the story that was written.  That answer does not admit to bias, but it lends itself to the interpretation of selection bias.  PolitiFact will not want to put forth any plain or even implicit admission of selection bias, particularly in a case like this one.

But it's only fair to give PolitiFact a chance to exhibit an unexpected degree of transparency.