Grading PolitiFact: Ann Coulter says more radiation is good for you?

Context matters -- We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

Here we go again.


The issue:

The fact checkers:

Robert Farley:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor

Analysis:

Another preliminary sign that a fact check will manifest a significant flub:  Marked disparity between the headline quotation and the subsequent deck paraphrase.

Anyone who thinks "There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts you should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer" readily equates with "exposure to low levels of radiation is good for you, reduces cancer risk" is logically challenged.  Can PolitiFact make the case based on broader considerations?

PolitiFact:

As news broke last week that Japan's nuclear disaster may result in low levels of radiation wafting all the way to the U.S., political pundit Ann Coulter wrote a column arguing that too much is made of exposure to low levels of radiation. In an appearance on Fox's O'Reilly Factor on March 17, Coulter argued some exposure to radiation may actually be good for you.

"There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts you should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer," Coulter said.

The beginning offers little encouragement.  PolitiFact appears to use Coulter's statement as its jumping-off point to reach the distorted language of its deck description.  The sole saving grace is the word "may," which makes the presentation in the opening paragraph at least 10 times more accurate than the deck material.

PolitiFact:

Before you go sticking your head in the X-ray machine, a little perspective is in order here. While there are scientists who subscribe to the theory that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects -- it's called hormesis -- it is still an outside-the-mainstream opinion.

Writer Robert Farley goes on to provide a sampling of expert opinion, which comes down generally against the hormesis hypothesis.

But is Farley checking the right claim?  Was Coulter trying to make the point that hormesis is solid science?

Let's go to the tape:




It is clear that Coulter appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" to answer questions about her recent column titled "A Glowing Report on Radiation."  In that column, Coulter makes it very clear that she does not think it is hard science, and the same paragraph where she makes that clear also makes the point of her column:

Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so. But Jenny McCarthy's vaccine theories get more press than Harvard physics professors' studies on the potential benefits of radiation.

In context, Coulter was making the point that the media are passing on a classic "man bites dog" story.  In other words she's making a point about media coverage of Japanese radiation leaks rather than jumping on a pseudoscientific bandwagon.  Coulter tried to emphasize the same point on O'Reilly's program but ended up having to instead deal with the host's skepticism about the evidence.

The story provides no evidence that PolitiFact examined the claim in the full context.

The story provides no evidence that PolitiFact paid attention to the comments that occurred before and after the key claim.

The story provides scant evidence that PolitiFact paid attention to the question that prompted Coulter's response.  For example (transcript mine):

O'Reilly:

The column is entitled "A Glowing Report on Radiation."  "Glowing," "Radiation," very, very good.  But you are not down on radiation poisoning.

Coulter:

Well, it's not me, I'm citing a stunning number of physicists, and from the New York Times and the Times of London there, there's a growing body of evidence that, uh, radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum (sic) amounts you should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduces cases of, um, cancer.

Farley's story provides no evidence that he accurately discerned Coulter's point.

The expert opinions that make up the bulk of Farley's story are interesting but ultimately do not give us the tools to rate Coulter's claim as PolitiFact's principles suggest it should be rated.  Farley's conclusion as much as admits the statement is taken out of context (bold emphasis added):

We are not rating whether hormesis -- or as Coulter put it, the theory that exposure to low levels of radiation is actually good for you and reduces cases of cancer -- is correct. Reputable scientists disagree about that. We're rating whether Coulter was correct in saying there is "a growing body of evidence" that radiation in excess of approved exposure levels may be beneficial.

There is a small but growing body of research to back up those claims. But the fact is that the mainstream of the scientific community has not embraced the theory. They point to limitations of those studies and argue the research falls well short of scientific evidence. Coulter failed to present this counter-weight, the opinion shared by the majority in the scientific community, which doesn't buy into -- and in many cases outright rejects -- the idea that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects and reduce the risk of cancer. And so we rate Coulter's claim Barely True.

Also note that while PolitiFact says it is rating Coulter on her "growing body of evidence" claim, the rating actually proceeds from what PolitiFact feels should have been the context of the claim, namely the fact that hormesis is not accepted in the mainstream of science.  PolitiFact, in fact, does not rate Coulter on the truth of her statement ("There is a small but growing body of research to back up those claims"="Mostly True" or "True").   When Coulter's statement is taken in context, there is no need for her to repeat that the truth of hormesis is not the mainstream view.  That was stated in her column and has little to do with the point of the column.

The grades:

Robert Farley:  F
Martha Hamilton:  F