Is PolitiFact a GOTV operation directed at Democrats?

PolitiFact's FaceBook activity yesterday gave me pause:

"A nice affirmation that we're doing it right at PolitiFact with our accountability journalism!"

Indeed?

The evidence that PolitiFact is supposedly "doing it right" comes from a story in Science Daily indicating that passive (he said/she said) journalism leaves readers feeling as though they can't determine who is right.

How does that finding indicate that PolitiFact is "doing it right"?  Even a wrong determination as to the truth of the matter might well improve readers' perceptions about their ability to understand the issues.  So the finding from the (Web) pages of Science Daily is orthogonal to whether the reporting itself is any good.

Given that readers' perceptions about their abilities may improve regardless of the quality of the reporting, how is it supposed to follow that PolitiFact is "doing it right"?

The key finding of the study, accurately portrayed in brief by PolitiFact, was that telling readers which facts were accurate helped readers feel like they could determine the truth for themselves.

It follows that PolitiFact feels it is doing journalism the right way if it helps readers feel as though they can figure out truth values for themselves.  It further follows, pending a deeper explanation from PolitiFact that I suspect will never occur, that one of PolitiFact's important aims is to help readers feel better about their epistemological acumen--their ability to arrive at the truth of the matter.

Why, exactly, should that be one of the aims of fact checking?

Perhaps the study itself will help answer that question.

The research was done by Raymond Pingree of the Ohio State University.  Pingree was investigating the question of journalism's effects on epistemic political efficacy, which is a fancy term for how people feel about their ability to discern the wise political path.  Pingree's concern is a common one among liberals who want more people to vote, particularly among those who feel that higher voter turnout favors liberal causes--a dubious proposition.

Turnout by party is a different proposition, however.  Better turnout by one party compared to another can lead to a huge advantage at the polls.

If PolitiFact readers are predominantly liberal, and if PolitiFact telling its readers what's politically true and what's not increases their epistemic political efficacy, then doesn't it follow that PolitiFact would operate in practice as a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote operation?

Is that why doing things "the right way" is desirable?

I'll emphasize again that I am reasonably confident that the PolitiFact staff as a whole takes fairness seriously and sees itself as taking on the two main political parties relatively equally.  But it isn't always easy to sustain that confidence.  What were they thinking by calling Pingree's study an affirmation of their methods?  The claim implicitly indicates a definite aim above and beyond simply doing fact checking.  Indeed, Pingree's thesis ought to hold regardless of whether journalistic guidance proved dependable, so long as that guidance was not obviously unreliable in the eyes of readers.  At best, PolitiFact's claim of affirmation suggests either a poor understanding of the science involved or a motive unbecoming in a non-partisan organization.