PolitiFactual machinations

Some recent PolitiFact research led me to stumble across a piece by PolitiFact's founder, Bill Adair, explaining how PolitiFact handles ratings for the accuracy of number claims.  From the story titled "Numbers game":

To assess the truth for a numbers claim, the biggest factor is the underlying message. In Paul's case, his point was a simple one, that many people have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He overstated the number, but not by all that many.

Adair offers two examples to illustrate.  In one, Ron Paul overestimated American deaths in Afghanistan by about 15 percent or more (652/4,349, and just to be clear I calculated the percentage, not Adair).  That degree of error cost Paul a "True" rating, dropping him down to "Mostly True."

In the second example, Barack Obama underestimated the number of states in which his parents' marriage would have broken the law.  Obama said 12 states, but PolitiFact said the correct number was 22 states.  Though Obama was way off by percentage, PolitiFact rated Obama fully "True" based on the accuracy of the underlying argument.

If you think about it, however, the rating is more complicated than Adair suggests.  According to Adair's description, Paul's underlying argument is just as true as Obama's.  The only real difference is that Paul's numbers overstated the truth (a little) while Obama's understated the truth (considerably).

Apparently, if you can give the appearance of making no attempt to embroider your case by exaggerating a figure in your favor it helps move the "Truth-O-Meter" needle in sympathy.

Politicians, maximize your Truth-O-Meter ratings by using deliberate underestimation.

And then ponder the irony.