Grading PolitiFact: Tim Pawlenty and the Iowa Marriage Pledge or something

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

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor


Analysis:

This piece by PolitiFact serves well to illustrate the liberal bias of the media with respect to social issues.

PolitiFact:

During a July 10, 2011, appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty about the origins of homosexuality.

So far, so good.  The origins of homosexuality constituted the topic.  And PolitiFact delivered in presenting Pawlenty's remarks in the company of their surrounding context:

MR. GREGORY:  Let me ask you about social policy.  You've notably said that you're a big fan of Lady Gaga, and even the song "Born This Way." There's a lot of debate about a gay marriage pledge in Iowa.  And related to that, I wonder, do you agree with some of those who are behind that, that being gay is a choice?

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, I have two teenage daughters who listen to Lady Gaga, so I'm subjected to it.  And it has some good qualities to it.  But as to, as to gay marriage, I'm in support of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman.  I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits and public employment as traditional couples.  And so this is an issue in Iowa and across the whole country.  But I've stood in favor or traditional marriage and traditional relationships in that regard.

MR. GREGORY:  Is being gay a choice?

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, the science in that regard is in dispute.  I mean, the scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral...

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

GOV. PAWLENTY:  ...of if it's partly genetic.

MR. GREGORY:  What do you think?

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.

MR. GREGORY:  So you, you think it's not a choice.

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, there is no...

MR. GREGORY:  That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way.

GOV. PAWLENTY:  There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic.  We don't know that.  So we don't know to what extent, you know, it's behavioral, and that's something that's been debated by scientists for a long time.  But as I understand the science, there's no current conclusion that it's genetic.

MSNBC transcript

PolitiFact reproduced as much of the context as I provided above, and that's commendable.  Unfortunately, the PolitiFact team proceeded to ignore the context for purposes of the fact check.

Before examining PolitiFact's failures in that respect, however, we will benefit from teasing apart David Gregory's interview questions along with Pawlenty's responses.

Note that Gregory asks his initial question in this section by saying it relates to the Iowa marriage pledge.  The marriage pledge has nothing in it about homosexuals choosing their orientation.  If Pawlenty takes Gregory seriously that his question relates to the marriage pledge then the question does not have to do with homosexuals choosing their sexual orientation.

Gregory also stipulates that "some" of those behind the marriage pledge think homosexuality is a choice, and that is the immediate lead-in as he asks Pawlenty if he agrees with those unnamed persons.  But if Gregory means to ask that question then it relates to the marriage pledge only tangentially.  That would mean that Gregory told a half-truth in saying his question related to the marriage pledge.

As a result, Pawlenty finds himself in the position of trying to figure out what Gregory is really asking him.  Does the question relate directly to the marriage pledge or is Gregory asking him say whether he thinks people choose their sexual orientation?

In the end, Pawlenty's answer is about as clear as Gregory's question.  But PolitiFact never bothers with the ambiguity even though some of their expert sources point it out:

...Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council -- a leading think tank for social conservatives -- agreed with the distinction between orientation and behavior. He suggested that fuzzy definitions of "sexual orientation" explain why the two camps sometimes talk past each other.

"Part of the problem is that the term ‘sexual orientation’ is somewhat ambiguous," Sprigg said. He suggests that it is sometimes used to cover three separate elements -- attractions, behaviors and self-identification.

"What I generally say is that I don‘t believe that same-sex attractions are a choice, but behaviors and self-identification are," he said. "If Pawlenty had wanted to be more subtle, he could have asked Gregory what he meant" by being gay.

Indeed, Gregory's question was ambiguous.  And Pawlenty compounded the problem with his reference to the potential "behavioral" origins of homosexual orientation.

In addition to confusing his question by claiming it related to the Iowa marriage pledge, Gregory repeatedly presented Pawlenty with a false dilemma.  Science and logic do not force any choice between genetics and choice with respect to homosexual orientation.  The choice, at worst, is between genetics and other factors such as environment and personal choice.  This is not to say, as Pawlenty points out, that genetics can't play a role that is less than absolute in determining sexual orientation.

I don't know what Pawlenty had in mind when he talked of "behavioral" factors.  PolitiFact assumed he meant that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.  Such assumptions are not the stuff of objective journalism.  The objective journalist tries to clear up the ambiguity in order to render a judgment as to the facts.  Failing that, the objective journalist declines to rule on the facts.

We end up with a situation where Gregory failed in his role as a journalist to obtain an unambiguous answer to his question.  And PolitiFact pretended otherwise.

We're not fact checking whether being gay is a choice, but whether scientists are "in dispute" over whether it is or is not.

Pawlenty repeatedly emphasized the dispute over whether homosexual orientation arises from genetics.  Despite his references to "behavioral" factors it simply isn't clear that Pawlenty buys the dilemma sold to him by Gregory.

The fact check from this juncture probably misses the point.  One can take Pawlenty out of context to interpret him as saying that scientist are in dispute whether homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.  But considering the context, Pawlenty is more likely saying that scientists dispute the role of genetics in determining sexual orientation.

If one supposed that journalists serve their ideological agenda, this case fits right in.  David Gregory hammers Pawlenty with a false dilemma.  Pawlenty resists the false dilemma but approaches the appearance of accepting it through his choice (two times) of the term "behavioral."  PolitiFact jumps on the ambiguity and has Pawlenty claiming that scientists dispute whether homosexual orientation is a choice.

The context argues against PolitiFact.  PolitiFact has again sacrificed its principles to its ideology.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Martha Hamilton:  F

Try to stick to objective judgment next time, you two.  Do some follow up with the speaker when ambiguity lingers.


Afters:

David Gregory:  F

Objective journalists avoid confronting their interview subjects with questions that represent a false dilemma.