A reconsideration

I've put myself on record repeatedly defending PolitiFact staffers from the charge of intentional bias in their work.

I've said that I consider intentional bias unlikely for a number of reasons.  But there's one persistent evidence that makes me question my stance in defending PolitiFact writers and editors on that point.

They don't seem interested in fixing obvious mistakes.

Take the recent example of a "Obameter" rating from President Obama.  The "Obameter" supposedly rates whether the president keeps his campaign promises.  In an earlier entry I documented how PolitiFact far over credited President Obama in delivering on this promise:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012."

No change at all was made to the Renewable Portfolio Standard, yet PolitiFact rated the promise as kept because the energy industry happened to exceed 10 percent usage of the energy sources listed in the president's promise.

This is an unambiguous error and continues to stand in need of correction.  I had visits from St. Petersburg Times computers immediately following the publication of my criticism, so it is overpoweringly likely that PolitiFact staffers are aware of the criticism.  Yet the story has received no correction.

How do I continue to defend PolitiFact staffers as to their moral integrity when they refuse to fix such an obvious error?

The best I can do in defending their morality is to assume that they do not perceive the need for the correction.  Yet that makes them appear unfit to engage in fact checking in the first place.

I don't like where this is going.