PolitiFact leaves misleading fact check of Gerard Robinson mostly intact

Updating a past Grading PolitiFact post, PolitiFact Florida made minor changes to its fact check of Florida's ex-education commissioner, Gerard Robinson.

The major errors inexplicably remain.

What changed

PolitiFact Florida altered its quotation of Robinson, adding a pair of ellipses.  The original version drew quotations from three separate paragraphs and, using no ellipses, stuck three of Robinson's sentences together to give the appearance of a single paragraph.

Here's how the new version reads (bold emphasis added):

Robinson penned a June 15 response, which included these comments: "The FCAT neither drives the curriculum nor narrows the educational experience of Florida students. ... These assessments average two to three per student per school year and account for less than 1 percent of the instructional time provided during the year. ... It is worth noting that local school boards require students to take many more assessments than those required by the state."

The changes still do not, so far as I can tell, conform to AP style for quotations.  Statements from separate paragraphs should show as separate paragraphs.

More importantly, what are we missing?


What didn't change

I spoke to PolitiFact editor Aaron Sharockman by phone last week.  I pointed out to him that Robinson had an entire paragraph dedicated to answering the charge that students spend too much time preparing for the FCAT. 

Here's that paragraph (bold emphasis added):

Florida's Next Generation Sunshine State Standards are the foundation for what we expect our students to learn. Subjects covered by Florida standards include English language arts, math, science, social studies, physical and health education, world languages, and fine arts along with other content areas specific to colleges and careers. Contrary to the claim of the FSBA resolution, the FCAT neither drives the curriculum nor narrows the educational experience of Florida students. In fact, at the middle school level, student enrollment in courses such as dance, drama, and world languages has increased more than student enrollment in the subject areas assessed on the FCAT. At the high school level, enrollment in dance, world languages and the humanities has outpaced the growth in student enrollment.

Robinson obviously stresses the point that it is appropriate for students to spend a great deal of time preparing for the FCAT since the FCAT measures "what we expect our students to learn."

PolitiFact omitted Robinson's point from its story.  No quotation.  No paraphrase.  Nothing.

I spoke to Sharockman again today.  I said I received the impression that he agreed with me that Robinson had stressed that it was appropriate to spend a great deal of time preparing for the FCAT.  I asked whether I had received a false impression.  Sharockman said that he did not recall agreeing about Robinson's point and said he thought I had received a false impression.

How does one miss Robinson's point in the above paragraph and then omit it in a fact check story about that same subject?

How does one miss it even after a critical review?


Beyond incompetence?

The update notice provided with the story after the ellipses were added doesn't quite ring true:

Update: During the editing process, ellipses were inadvertently left out of Robinson's comments of June 15. The ellipses are now included.

I alerted the writer and editor by email about the problem with the quotation before 1 p.m. the day after the story published.  The story published on July 30 at 11:53 a.m.  By Friday, Aug. 3, the problem still stems from an inadvertent omission during the editing process?

Something's broken at PolitiFact.

PolitiFlub: PolitiFact puts a price tag on ObamaCare

Hilarious.

In fact, the CBO has said that overall the health care bill actually reduces government spending by about $124 billion over 10 years.

PolitiFact makes this claim in the context of a story about spending under the Accessible Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

PolitiFact doesn't use "spending" normally, here.

People use "spending" to refer to outlays.  If you make $2000 per month and spend $1500 on rent and essentials while saving $500, your spending for the month is $1500.  PolitiFact would have you count your income against your expenses and find that you spent -$500 for the month.  But that's a budget surplus, not a reduction in spending.

It's misleading to present a budget surplus or deficit as a spending figure.

No serious person thinks the ACA reduces spending.

The closest to that we can get comes from crediting the ACA with reducing the increase in Medicare spending.  We'll ignore the cautions from Medicare's chief actuary that the projections are unrealistic.  Here's what the left-leaning Center for American Progress says about Medicare savings: 

$424.4 billion: The amount of federal deficit reduction from 2010 to 2019 due to changes in Medicare coverage and payment rules under ACA. These include limits on annual rate increases for hospitals and other health care providers.

Nothing else in the ACA suggests a decrease in federal spending.  It spends more on subsidies and more on Medicaid.  The federal government will spend more with the ACA than without.

This CBO report may represent the source of PolitiFact's claim:

In March 2010, CBO and JCT estimated that PPACA and the provisions of the Reconciliation Act related to health care would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $124 billion over the 2010–2019 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues.

Drop the part about "revenues" and it makes for an ObamaCare-friendly soundbite.  The CBO figures the ACA as a deficit reducer not because of decreased federal spending but because of tax increases combined with the accounting trick (built into the CBO's standard methodology) of not foreseeing changes to statutorily mandated decreases in health care provider reimbursements under Medicare (see the "doc fix").  The CBO has to pretend that the "doc fix" will not occur even though it very probably will occur regularly.

PolitiFact's misstatement is the stuff of misleading political ads.  But they call it fact checking.

PolitiFact fishing for Romney error?

There's something fishy about PolitiFact's July 3 fact check of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Fishy fact checks are common at PolitiFact, but the stench this time comes from a less common source:  The key quotation is missing from the story.

PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):

Mitt Romney likes to draw a straight line between environmental regulations and the jobs they cost. That was the thrust of his statement at a Frankenmuth, Mich., campaign event on June 19, 2012.  Romney said Oklahoma lost out on a plant that Dow Chemical ended up building in Saudi Arabia.

Citing a conversation he'd had with a person from Dow, Romney told his audience at a business roundtable, "They said they couldn't rely on the natural gas here given the environmental regulation and whether it would be an abundant supply and reliable or not."

PolitiFact writer Jon Greenberg cited a transcript of the business roundtable Romney attended in Michigan.  So why no quotation? 

Upon investigation, perhaps we get no quotation because that gives the reader too much information.

A video of the roundtable is available at electad.com.  Romney makes the comments PolitiFact found interesting at about the 12:45 mark of the video.  My transcript follows (bold emphasis added):

"Yeah, I heard from Dow Chemical, they just did, they announced a major facility in I believe it's Saudi Arabia, they were looking at building it in Oklahoma but they said we couldn't rely on the natural gas here, the environmental regulation and whether it would be an abundant supply and reliable or not."

Greenberg fact checks whether a Dow Chemical plant planned for Saudi Arabia was planned for Oklahoma.  But Romney clearly indicated his uncertainty that the facility for which Oklahoma was in the running ended up in Saudi Arabia.

Is Greenberg hiding the ball from his readers?

Greenberg remains fixed on Romney's tentative recollection of the Saudi Arabia facility:

But Romney wasn’t highlighting a Dow project by itself. He was saying it could have happened in Oklahoma. We asked the Romney campaign to back up the claim that Dow had picked Saudi Arabia over Oklahoma for reasons related to the natural gas supply. We never heard back.

We asked Dow if Oklahoma had ever been in the running as a possible location for that facility. The company never responded to that direct question.

Greenberg supplies sufficient reporting to make it appear unlikely the facility in Saudi Arabia was ever a possibility for Oklahoma.  But he spends apparently no time at all exploring other possibilities where Romney expressed uncertainty.  The PolitiFact story mentions a new plant in Freeport, Texas as part of an effort to take advantage of cheap natural gas reserves.  Why not explore that avenue?

Business Insider, April 12, 2012:

My friend who has been running hedge fund money for years had this to say:

“Nat Gas could go to zero. Gas is a byproduct of drilling for oil. With US oil still worth $100+ a barrel, the drilling will continue, and more gas will be the result.”

“There are many things that are changing due to the cheap Nat. gas. Companies that are running short haul truck routes out of central locations are converting to gas. Chemical companies that use natural gas as a feedstock are seeing new opportunities. The first new ethylene plant (plastic from natural gas) in many years will be built in Oklahoma. This plant was going to be built in Mexico, but cheap gas has brought it back home.”

I'm not going to try to do Greenberg's reporting for him.  But it seems possible that Oklahoma could host an ethylene cracking facility, for example, and that Dow may have initially considered Oklahoma as part of the expansion based in Freeport.

It looks like Greenberg either ignored his reporter's instincts or else had no such instincts to ignore.

Editors Aaron Sharockman and Bill Adair failed to bridge the gap.

PolitiFlub: A static number of federal jobs programs?

What can you say about a fact-checking organization that's often no more accurate than the statements it critiques?

Case in point, PolitiFact did a check on Mitt Romney's claim that the federal government runs 49 jobs programs and oversees those programs using eight different agencies.

PolitiFact used as its key source a Government Accountability Office report that focused on fiscal year 2009.

The current year is 2012, and it is the year in which Romney made his statement.

PolitiFact made a very weak effort to update the GAO numbers with reports of new federal job training programs or changes in the number of agencies overseeing said programs.  Indeed, PolitiFact did not make any mention of the Wall Street Journal column that probably served as Romney's source:

There are no fewer than 49 federal job training programs administered by nine agencies that cost taxpayers some $14.5 billion in 2010. A General Accountability Office performance audit in 2011 looked at fiscal year 2009 and determined that "only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess whether the program is responsible for improved employment outcomes."

If the Journal report is correct then Romney is off by one as to the number of agencies overseeing job training programs and did not overestimate the number of federal jobs programs.  PolitiFact, if the Journal report is correct, was accurate regarding the number of agencies but off by at least two regarding the number of programs, with the latter an understatement of the actual number.

It looks very much like PolitiFact simply whiffed on the attempt to check for new information updating the GAO numbers.  Without that information PolitiFact has no business trying to rate the truth of Romney's claim.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): The IPAB, rationing, and Pat Boone

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Angie Drobnic Holan:  writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman: editor

Analysis:

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a "death panel" as Sarah Palin originally used the term.

PolitiFact is dead set against admitting it.

It's fun to watch the contortions as PolitiFact does its usual denial in the context of the Pat Boone television ad.

PolitiFact:

Here’s part of Boone’s criticism; it focuses on the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB:

"This IPAB board can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments so Washington can fund more wasteful spending. Your choices could be limited and you may not be able to keep your own doctor. ... Washington politicians, like Bill Nelson, are ignoring the problem, putting their own re-elections first. Call Sen. Nelson. Urge him to support real Medicare reform and protect our seniors."

The ad makes several claims, but here, we’re going to specifically fact-check Boone’s claim that the IPAB "can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments so Washington can fund more wasteful spending."

The statement PolitiFact chooses is obviously a compound claim, including the assertions that the IPAB can ration care, that it can deny certain Medicare treatments, and that some combination of the former two enable Washington to fund "more wasteful spending."  The obvious warrants mention because PolitiFact makes little effort to keep its treatment of the constituent statements distinct from one another.

PolitiFact:

Under the health care reform law, if Medicare spending growth is projected to exceed pre-set targets, the IPAB must come up with plans to slow that increase. If Congress does not act on the recommendations within a set time, IPAB’s recommendations automatically go into effect. (For a more detailed explanation of how this would work, we recommend this April 2011 report from the independent Kaiser Family Foundation.)

PolitiFact summarizes the function of the IPAB reasonably well.  The challenge comes from trying to identify IPAB recommendations that do not result in economic forces that result in the rationing of Medicare services, though there's always the option of ignoring the economic implications.

We should emphasize here that IPAB recommendations would not apply to any particular individual, but would be across-the-board policy recommendations applied to the entire program. Given Boone’s rhetoric, some people could get the wrong impression that the board would review individual patient treatments and deny care. That’s not the case.

There's nothing about Boone's statement that particularly suggests he's talking about a policy managed at the level of individual patients.  No statement is idiot proof, so PolitiFact's observation is effectively irrelevant without something straight from Boone that contributes to a misleading impression for a reasonable person.

PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):

Boone calls the members of the IPAB "15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats." Rather than career government workers, the law says IPAB members shall include people with national recognition for health care expertise, including "different  professionals, broad geographic representation, and a balance between urban and rural representatives." (Board members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.) On the point of accountability, we’ll just repeat that Congress retains the power to overrule any IPAB recommendations, though there are special rules in place so that the recommendations cannot be filibustered or otherwise delayed. 

Though it's a bit of a digression, it is useful to point out PolitiFact's failure to address Boone's point about a lack of accountability for the IPAB.  The IPAB is parallel to the Supreme Court in some ways.  The board members have no constituency or higher body to which they are accountable.  It is an independent board.  It says so right on the label.  It is irrelevant to the accountability of the board members that Congress has a shot to overrule its recommendations.  That is a check on its power, not a form of accountability.

The IPAB has restrictions on what it can recommend in the name of cost savings. It can’t raise rates, drop beneficiaries or ration care. Here’s the exact language from the law itself:

"The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

Boone says the IPAB seeks to reduce Medicare spending so the government can spend money on other "wasteful" things. But the IPAB is intended to slow Medicare spending if its growth exceeds pre-defined targets. It’s also capped on how much it can reduce spending: It can recommend measures to bring Medicare within specific cost-savings targets and no more.

1)  Given the second paragraph above along with the stipulation that the IPAB cannot recommend rationing, we again find ourselves confronted with the question of what IPAB can do to control costs--and whether those measures result in rationing after all.

2)  The third paragraph repeats the pattern noted above regarding Boone's point about accountability.  PolitiFact does not address the congressional option of wasting money saved through the implementation of IPAB recommendations.

3)  One continues to wonder what the IPAB can do to cut Medicare spending without encouraging rationing as a result.  The "pre-defined targets" are a soft cap on Medicare spending.  Capping spending directly encourages rationing of services.  If a family goes out to dinner with a cap on spending then it is price-rationing the meal.  If a dining-out IPAB finds a way to reduce the tab to bring the family's meal down within the bounds of a soft cap that is likewise a rationing force.  It's inevitable.  One can plan to stiff the server, but that route by analogy leads to yet more rationing in the health care context.

PolitiFact:

Our ruling

Boone said, "This IPAB board can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments so Washington can fund more wasteful spending." Actually, the law specifically states that the board cannot ration care. The board doesn’t look at individual patients or deny individual treatments. Instead, it makes system-wide recommendations to rein in the future growth of Medicare spending, and it makes those recommendations within limited parameters. It also was created to stop runaway spending growth within the Medicare program itself, not to divert money to other budget items. We rate Boone’s statement Pants on Fire.

It's just crazy to render a ruling without giving a single example of a cost-cutting strategy the IPAB can recommend without some type of rationing occurring as a result.  If the IPAB can only recommend measures that lead to rationing then the ruling "Pants on Fire" cannot reasonably apply to Boone's claim.

Maybe the IPAB has tools at its disposal that will limit costs but PolitiFact simply failed to take note?

Let's look at the Kaiser Family Foundation summary of the IPAB to see if it helps answer that question.

The statute sets target growth rates for Medicare spending. The target is not a "hard cap" on Medicare spending growth, but if spending exceeds these targets, IPAB is required to submit recommendations to reduce Medicare spending by a specified percentage (discussed below).

There's the soft cap.  It's important to note that a soft cap is nothing like no cap at all.  The IPAB is charged to act any time Medicare spending exceeds the targeted goal.  The recommendations must reduce the amount of excess spending:

If projected growth for the implementation year exceeds the target, and the medical care component of the CPI-U exceeds the CPI-U, then IPAB is required to develop and submit a proposal to bring Medicare per capita growth within the target in the implementation year, subject to the applicable limits (maximum savings) on reductions described below.

Congress cannot overrule the Board's recommendations without substituting its own recommendations to meet the cost reduction goal:

Finally we get to see some examples of recommendations the IPAB might make (bold emphasis added):

IPAB is prohibited from including any recommendation that would: (1) ration health care; (2) raise revenues or increase Medicare beneficiary premiums or cost sharing; or (3) otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria. In addition, for implementation years through 2019, mandatory proposals cannot include recommendations that would reduce payment rates for providers and suppliers of services scheduled to receive reductions under the ACA below the level of the automatic annual productivity adjustment called for under the Act.16 As a result, payments for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities, long-term care hospitals, and hospices are exempt from IPAB-proposed reductions in payment rates until 2020; clinical laboratories are exempt until 2016. These exclusions leave Medicare Advantage, the Part D prescription drug program, skilled nursing facility, home health, dialysis, ambulance and ambulatory surgical center services, and durable medical equipment (DME) as the focus of attention.

The above implies that price controls on some services and medical supplies will end up the IPAB's method of choice for controlling costs.  It is widely recognized in economics that price controls--price ceilings--reduce supply.  Reducing the supply results in a rationed market for those services or goods.

Put simply, text of the health care law is incorrect when it says the IPAB cannot cut costs via rationing.

Journalistic curiosity ought to prompt hard questions on these points--especially in a fact check.  One could hazard a guess that journalistic curiosity was anesthetized by ideology.


The grades:

Angie Drobnic Holan:  F
Aaron Sharockman:  F

The first PolitiFact Bias research project will suggest that all "Pants on Fire" ratings are unfair and the result of a subjective determination by the responsible PolitiFact teams.  Pat Boone's statement was neither false nor ridiculously false in any non-subjective sense.  It was at least somewhat accurate when considered objectively.

These journalists are probably either biased in favor of health care reform roughly along the lines of the ACA or else painted into a corner on this ruling by other PolitiFact rulings that were influenced by ideology.  It's hard to explain the collected set of rulings on health care reform any other way.


Addendum:

After publishing, I ran across "The Coming Medical Ethics Crisis" over at Reason.com:

In 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Beginning in 2014, the 15 presidential appointees on this board will determine what therapies, procedures, tests, and medications will be covered by Medicare, using advice provided by the FCCCER. Such determinations will then be used to design the coverage packages for the non-Medicare insurance offered through the government–run exchanges. The decisions of the IPAB are not subject to Congressional oversight or judicial review.

I have not corroborated some of the information from the article.  Read it all, and consider that the source is a doctor.  Then stay on the lookout for information that confirms (or contradicts) the details and don't say nobody warned us.


Update:  Altered the title and tags to reflect the fact that the fact check was done by PolitiFact's Florida franchise.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Alan Hays, proof of citizenship and voting

Words matter -- We pay close attention to the specific wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain mitigating words or phrases?
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

If anything about an anecdote can strongly suggest an ideological bias, it is the complete ease with which PolitiFact can ignore its supposed principles.


The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Amy Sherman:  writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman:  editor


Analysis:

Words matter.  Here are the words Alan Hays used during the committee meeting, via the PolitiFact story (bold emphasis added):

"Before we design a district anywhere in the state of Florida for Hispanic voters, we need to ascertain that they are citizens of the United States. We all know there are many Hispanic speaking people in Florida that are not legal, and I just don't think that it's right that we try to draw a district that encompasses people that really have no business voting anyhow. If we know registered voters are people who have proven their citizenship then that's a completely different story, but I'm not aware of any proof of citizenship necessary before you register to vote."

Hays says he isn't aware of any proof of citizenship necessary in Florida, before one can register to vote.

Watch the PolitiFact twist:

Hays said you don't need to prove that you're a citizen in order to cast a ballot.

Words matter?

If words matter then we should expect PolitiFact to note the difference between saying one does not know of a requirement and saying that no requirement exists.  If PolitiFact subjected its own claim to the "Truth-O-Meter"--and the thing actually worked like it's supposed to--I don't see how it could rate higher than "Mostly False."

It seems that words matter at PolitiFact's discretion.  That is, according to subjective criteria.

Fact checking a dubious paraphrase rather than the subject's actual words already constitutes justification for failing grades, but even apart from this blunder the fact check takes an astonishingly errant course.

Is it necessary to prove citizenship in order to register to vote in Florida?

PolitiFact takes up the question by initially examining the motor voter registration system, perhaps reasoning that the emphasis is appropriate given the popularity of that mode of registration:

Floridians can register to vote a variety of ways -- but the most common registration method is at driver's license offices. In 2010, more than 270,000 people registered to vote at driver's license offices. The second-most common method was what the state division of elections calls the "other" category, which includes registering in person at supervisors of elections offices.

Motor voter registration apparently does require proof of citizenship:

In Florida when drivers apply for a driver's license, they must provide proof that they are in the country legally. U.S. citizens could show a passport or a proper birth certificate to verify their citizenship. Immigrants who are not U.S. citizens would have to provide the proper visa.

But for non-citizens who wish to vote, the motor voter identification requirements represent no real barrier:

But what if someone walks into a supervisor of elections office and asks to register to vote?

In those cases, people registering to vote must sign an oath on a registration application attesting that they are qualified to vote and that all the information on the application is true. (Usually at driver's licenses offices applicants who want to apply to register to vote don't have to sign that particular form since the office already has their signature as part of the driver's license application process.)

The application includes a question: Are you a citizen of the United States? If you answer no, the form says "you cannot register to vote."

We asked state Division of Elections spokesman Chris Cate if the state does anything to verify citizenship.

"The answer is no," he said. "The law doesn't require someone to provide proof of citizenship when they register. If they swear, attest and sign under oath that their information is accurate and that they are a citizen we will accept their voter registration."

Voter registration through an elections office, then, basically utilizes the honor system.  If you say you're a citizen then you can register to vote regardless of whether you couldn't provide proof of citizenship when you received your driver's license.

Game over?  It may look like it, but the story continues with a description of the torments waiting in Hell (felony charges, anyway) for non-citizens who lie on their registration form.

It isn't relevant.  Whether or not the state metes out punishments to those it isn't even seeking who have improperly registered, they're allowed to register without proving citizenship.

Then there's this puzzling statement from PolitiFact:

Individual supervisors of elections do have the ability to determine if an applicant is an U.S. citizen, Cate said, though it would be difficult for a supervisor to ascertain citizenship.

Huh?  I'd like to see that unpacked.  Supervisors of elections have the authority to verify citizenship but verifying citizenship is difficult?  That's my best guess at translating the meaning.  And it isn't very reassuring in that form.

But PolitiFact still isn't finished.

It turns out that election experts Ion Sancho (FEC filings here) and Emogene Stegall say there's no problem with non-citizens voting:

Sancho said the idea that illegal residents are voting is "laughable it's so wrong."

"We are not seeing any problem with illegal citizens voting in the U.S. anywhere, not just in Tallahassee or Florida. It's a canard that illegal individuals are registering and voting. ... Voting requires putting your name and address on an official document and that is not something undocumented individuals tend to do."

The local elections supervisor in Hays' own district, Lake County, sees it the same way.

"We've never had a problem with illegal voting in Lake County, no way,'' said Emogene W. Stegall, who has served in the county's election's office for 40 years.

PolitiFact interviews "impartial experts."  Or Democrats.  Apparently either will do.

Opinions from Sancho and Stegall are not necessarily wrong simply because they are liberals.  Simply observe that their opinions are accompanied by the very thinnest of evidences, the best of it being Sancho's claim that undocumented individuals tend not to put names and addresses on official documents.

Seriously, what's the harm in putting a name and address on voter registration if elections supervisors do not attempt to verify citizenship?  Do these two have any data in support of their expert opinions?

What does the Truth-O-Meter conclude?

Our ruling

Sen. Hays said that Florida doesn't require "any proof of citizenship necessary before you register to vote." There is a kernel of truth here: According to the state Division of Elections, state law doesn't require new voter applicants to prove their citizenship in some physical sense. They simply must sign a sworn statement attesting that they meet the voting requirements -- including being a citizen.

Again setting aside the, ah, liberal interpretation of Hays' statement, why is there simply a "kernel of truth" to the proposition that it isn't necessary to prove citizenship in order to register to vote in Florida?  PolitiFact subsequently mentions caveats, so let's look there for our answer:

First, willfully lying on a voter registration form about your citizenship status can lead to a felony conviction.

Failing to bring your vehicle to a complete stop at a stop sign can lead to a traffic citation.  Enforcement is really the key, isn't it?  The state admits that it has no active enforcement mechanism attached to the voter registration system other than the easily circumvented identification requirements associated with the motor voter program.

Second, the most common way to register to vote in Florida is during the process of obtaining a driver's license -- in 2010, 57 percent of those who registered to vote in Florida chose that method. And during that process, people are asked to verify their citizenship.

Is this a joke?

If registration through the driver's license program isn't a necessary requirement to register to vote then the identify checks associated with that program are not required in order to register to vote.  It's basic logic.  And it is already admitted that one can go straight from the driver's license office to the supervisor of elections and register on the honor system.

Lastly, we have to consider the experiences of two actual supervisor of elections, who said there is no widespread problem of illegal immigrants registering to vote.

We have no evidence that either of the helpful liberal supervisors of elections base their claims on empirical data.

For those reasons, we rate this claim Mostly False.

 Those were rationalizations, not reasons.

The fact check attributed a claim to Hays that Hays did not make and then used a ridiculous set of excuses to obscure the truth of the made-up claim.

I'm sputtering trying to think of condemnatory language equal to the task of lambasting PolitiFact over this fact check.


The grades

Amy Sherman:  F
Aaron Sharockman:  F

Both members of the team could have earned failing grades simply for making up the claim attributed to Hays.  But this duo when beyond the pale by ignoring clear evidence that the claim they graded "Mostly False" was essentially true.

We have yet another instance of a PolitiFact team earning the label "journalists reporting badly."

Grading PolitiFact: Mitt Romney, the NLRB and Boeing

Words matter -- We pay close attention to the specific wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain mitigating words or phrases?
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Jon Greenberg:  writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman:  editor


Analysis:

PolitiFact, it is said, pays close attention to the specific wording of a claim.  We might as well look at the precise wording from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney before we delve into the nitty gritty of the fact check.

PolitiFact, oddly enough, provided no link to a transcript of the debate.

Romney's claim was part of a reply to fellow candidate Herman Cain (yellow highlights indicate portion used by PolitiFact):

CAIN: Yes. One of my guiding principles has been and will always be, surround yourself with good people. The 999 plan that I have proposed is simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral My question is to Governor Romney. Can you name all 59 points in your 160-page plan, and does it satisfy that criteria of being simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral?

(LAUGHTER) 

(APPLAUSE) 

ROMNEY: Herman, I have had the experience in my life of taking on some tough problems. And I must admit that simple answers are always very helpful, but oftentimes inadequate.

And in my view, to get this economy going again, we're going to have to deal with more than just tax policy and just energy policy, even though both of those are part of my plan. 

And the other parts of my plan are these. One is to make sure that we stop the regulatory creep that has occurred in Washington. And all of the Obama regulations, we say no to, we put a halt on them, and reverse all those that cost jobs. 

Number two, we have trade policies that open up new markets to American goods. And I lay out a number of things that I would do in that 59 points to open up more markets to American goods. And, we, of course, stop the cheating that goes on. 

We also have to have the rule of law. By that I mean you can't have the federal government, through its friends at the National Labor Relations Board, saying to a company like Boeing that you can't build a factory in a non-union state. That's simply wrong and violates the principle of the rule of law. 

We also have to have institutions that create human capital. We're a capitalist system. But we don't just believe in physical capital or financial capital, also human capital. We need great schools, great institutions.

Finally, you have got to have a government that does not spend more money than it takes in. Those are the seven major pillars of those 59. 

 (Time) 

 Either PolitiFact did not pay particularly close attention to the precise wording of Romney's claim or else something is amiss.  Note that the PolitiFact headline/deck material portray Romney as saying unequivocally that the government told Boeing that it could not build a factory in a non-union state.

In fact, Romney references the Boeing case as a hypothetical ("a company like Boeing"), so his point stands regardless of whether the event occurred or not.  Granted, Romney's point receives its greatest support with a valid concrete example, but for purposes of evaluating PolitiFact we are interested in the specific wording of the claim.

PolitiFact:

We decided to examine this question: Did the NLRB tell Boeing that it "can’t build a factory in a non-union state."

That's an interesting question, I suppose, but a picture of Romney's face appears near the "Truth-O-Meter" rating.  Wouldn't it be a good idea under those circumstances to rate a statement that Romney made and did not simply imply?

Well we might as well see where the errant path leads us.

PolitiFact:

About six years ago, Boeing was ramping up to build its newest passenger jet, the 787 Dreamliner. The company explored making all the planes at its factories in Washington state, but in 2009, it decided to start a second, smaller production line in South Carolina. The union plants in Puget Sound would make seven planes a month; the non-union facility in North Charleston, S.C. would produce three a month.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers complained. The NLRB’s general counsel tried to bring the parties together but failed. In April 2011, the general counsel’s office formally issued a complaint on the grounds that Boeing built its factory in South Carolina in order to punish the union.  

Top Boeing officials were quite open about  the connection between the machinists union and the new factory. According to the filing,one executive told a newspaper that "the overriding factor (in transferring the line) was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years."

The first of the above three paragraphs seems accurate on its face, but the second paragraph is loaded.  The union complained.  The NLRB's general counsel tried to bring the parties together?  How?  In what way?  By telling the union its complaint was poorly founded?  By telling Boeing to cave and build the Dreamliner in Washington state?  Something in between?   It matters to Romney's case.

In the third paragraph PolitiFact offers a one-sided account of the situation between Boeing and the union.  The first sentence makes a judgment about statements from "top Boeing officials."  Supposedly they were "quite open about the relationship between the union and the new factory," and our concrete example chops off Boeing's rationale for avoiding a work stoppage (it's also a phantom citation; see "Afters").  Boeing maintains that delivering its product on time plays a key part in global competition.  The union characterizes the move as a punitive action against the union.  The PolitiFact story highlights the union's position and obscures that of the company.

We see that biased presentation continue in the next paragraph from the NLRB:

In the eyes of the general counsel, this was a form of retaliation against the union for having conducted strikes in the past. As such, he argued Boeing violated the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits employers from interfering with the right of workers to organize and to strike.

The question is: Did Boeing act to get back at the union or did it have other reasons? "The whole thing boils down to motivations," said Nancy Cleeland, a spokesperson for the NLRB. "That’s the reason  to have a hearing. To see what was going on."

Golly.  What possible reason could Boeing have for wanting to avoid a work stoppage other than to punish the union?  It's quite the mystery!  Except that looking at Boeing officials' words in context we see again and again the rationale of remaining competitive in the global market.

Yet we don't see that rationale in this fact check.

PolitiFact:

Cleeland’s emphasis on a hearing could sound like boring procedure, but it’s actually pivotal.  Since Romney brought up the Boeing dispute to demonstrate his regard for the rule of law, it's worth looking at the legal process here. The NLRB has five board members. So far, they have played no role in this matter at all.

Board members are appointed by the president and heavily reflect President Obama's preferences, but you don't need to be bothered with that while we're fact checking.

PolitiFact:

The call for a hearing came when the general counsel of the NLRB, who acts independently of the board, filed a complaint because there seemed to be enough evidence to make it stick. Based on such a complaint, this case now sits before an administrative judge who has yet to make a decision. After the judge rules, that ruling will then go to the NLRB to be voted up or down or changed.

Yes, the NLRB's general counsel is independent of the Board, but both are appointed by the president.  Not that you need to know that.  It should be enough to know that the general counsel is independent of the board even if both operate at the behest of President Obama.  Right?

PolitiFact:

In short, the law provides a process with checks and balances.

How silly.  The NLRB operates under the executive branch.  The board is dominated by the president's appointees.  The general counsel is likewise appointed by the president.  Even the administrative judge is part of the NLRB and as such an extension of the executive branch rather than the judicial branch of government.

If we have checks and balances here, they consist of the Senate's advise and consent power in the Democrat-dominated Senate and the roles of Congress and the judiciary in keeping the executive branch (and with it the NLRB) in line.

PolitiFact:

Romney’s statement gets way ahead of that process, and it runs into trouble on another front. The complaint against Boeing is not based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. We spoke to lawyers who think the complaint is well founded and lawyers who think it is utterly misguided, but they agree on this point.

Again, the PolitiFact evaluation comes across as simply laughable.  The entire process is under the NLRB thus far and thus entirely under the auspices of the Obama administration.  When Obama's general counsel files a complaint it is likely on its face that Obama's board of directors will back it.  But credit PolitiFact writer Jon Greenberg with a valiant effort to make it look like a process fitted with all manner of checks and balances.

Greenberg's attempt to fault Romney's reasoning is similarly lame, even if he can share that blame with his cited experts (like Stanford's William Gould).

Romney doesn't affix any particular importance to the fact that South Carolina is right-to-work state.  He could have said it was a Southern state instead and that would not indicate that South Carolina's position relative to the equator had a role in the Obama administration's decision.  That complaint against Romney is a non-starter.


Does Greenberg buy what he's selling?

PolitiFact:

The third problem with Romney’s statement is that if the general counsel at the NLRB really wanted to block the factory in South Carolina, he could have asked for an injunction, which is allowed under the National Labor Relations Act. He did not. The factory is up and running, and Cleeland, the NLRB spokesperson, says Boeing now can tell the administrative judge that to shut the plant would cause undue economic hardship.

Perhaps the general counsel was concerned that the judicial branch would not back the NLRB.  Best to stick with political pressure based on an in-house effort from the executive branch without risking interference from an independent judiciary.  You don't always get to pick your own judge.  Note the expert job Greenberg does of making it appear that the administrative judge is part of the judicial branch.  You'd think the administrative judge would have had a role in granting the would-be injunction based on Greenberg's writing.  Maybe Greenberg even believes that's the way it works.

Just before PolitiFact's grand conclusion, Greenberg adds a paragraph's worth of balance to the story:

There is of course political context to this story. Organized labor has more pull with Democrats than with Republicans, and the machinists union pressed hard to have its complaint move forward. Semmens with the NRWC said he thinks that pressure lies behind the NLRB action. 

No kidding.

PolitiFact:

Romney claimed that the NLRB told Boeing that it  "can’t build a factory in a non-union state." This presents a sweeping distortion of the NLRB's actions that is not borne out by the facts.

Compare the above with my parallel version:

PolitiFact claimed that Romney claimed that the NLRB told Boeing that it "can't build a factory in a non-union state."  This represents a sweeping distortion of Romney's words that is not borne out by the facts.

The same type of argument that PolitiFact uses to undermine Romney works to undermine PolitiFact's criticism of Romney.

PolitiFact:

An office at the NLRB has started a process that could, at the theoretical limit, result in a factory closure, but the NLRB as a whole hasn’t told Boeing anything.

Again, Romney did not say that the NLRB told Boeing anything.  PolitiFact inferred that from Romney's statement and blamed Romney.  Boeing experienced a threat from the executive branch of government to its plans to maintain global competitiveness.  Romney's statement need not mean more than that.

Romney’s statement reflects reality in that a Democratic administration tends to give more weight to union complaints, and unions don’t like to see jobs flow to right-to-work states. But his words go far beyond what the NLRB has actually done.

We rate his statement False.

PolitiFact's words go beyond what Romney actually said.  I say this is journalists reporting badly.

The grades:

Jon Greenberg:  F
Aaron Sharockman:  F

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair has said PolitiFact tries to go beyond the "both sides of the story" approach to fact checking.  Greenberg and Sharockman succeed at avoiding the "both sides of the story" method and then some with this lopsided account of the Boeing labor dispute.  The only thing missing is the rigorous finding of fact that would support PolitiFact's landing on the side of Obama and the union with this fact check.

Afters:

Here's another good example of PolitiFact's shoddy handling of evidence:

Top Boeing officials were quite open about  the connection between the machinists union and the new factory. According to the filing,one executive told a newspaper that "the overriding factor (in transferring the line) was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years." 

You won't find the quotation in the linked filing.  Go ahead and look.

See?  It's not there.  It's not in the other documents PolitiFact links as sources of the story, either, so far as I can tell.  Judging from the information in the other documents the quotation probably occurs in one of the sources cited in the filing PolitiFact linked.  Linking to a secondary source is not among the best practices for a researcher.  Linking to a secondary source that doesn't even include the material that supposedly came from that source is worse.  Congratulations to PolitiFact.


Second Afters:

One of the more interesting aspects of the labor dispute comes from the union's claim (later picked up by the NLRB's general counsel) that a Boeing official appears on videotape saying that the Dreamliner work was moved to South Carolina because of work stoppages and the like.  Recalling that Boeing asserts the importance of maintaining its ability to compete globally via dependable delivery of its products, you be the judge:

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Alan Grayson and global wealth inequality

To assess the truth for a numbers claim, the biggest factor is the underlying message.
--PolitiFact editor Bill Adair

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson: writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman: editor

Analysis:

We have here another specimen where PolitiFact makes a clear exception to its principle that the most important aspect of claims involving numbers is the underlying message.  There is no attempt in the story to either identify or evaluate the underlying argument of Democrat Alan Grayson.  One could imagine that PolitiFact did not extend the effort because Grayson's point was opinion--that unequal wealth distribution is unfair at least in some sense--but without any explanation to that effect we're left with PolitiFact relaxing its principles without explanation.

Before we start evaluating the Grayson fact check, have a look at how PolitiFact pans Sarah Palin for an accurate report of the U.S. ranking of defense spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product:

"In absolute dollars, we spend almost as much as all other countries combined," (Todd) Harrison said. "So saying we are 25th is a bit misleading and a selective use of facts."

We agree. Although she's technically correct, the numbers are wildly skewed by tiny, non-industrialized countries. We find her claim Barely True. 

The Palin rating adequately demonstrates that PolitiFact will take an underlying message into account for a number ranking claim such as Grayson's, at least on a selective basis.

Grayson, responding to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow's question about why the "Occupy Wall Street" protests resonate with Americans (yellow highlights indicate portion used by PolitiFact):

The second thing is that they`ve created a system that is enormously unequal. And the result of that is people are struggling to find a job to pay their bills, to pay their rent, to pay their credit card bills.  According to Wikipedia, there are only five countries in the entire planet that are more unequal than the United States in the distribution of our wealth. That`s a system that Wall Street created, that Wall Street maintains, and that Wall Street enforces.

PolitiFact puts immediate and exclusive focus on the numbers claim:

We should note here that we’re glad that Grayson cited his sources -- in the midst of a national TV interview no less! -- but we’re also disappointed that his source was Wikipedia, which is open to editing by anyone.

Luckily for Grayson, the Wikipedia page he cited had sourced its numbers to a peer-reviewed paper. The paper was coauthored by four academics, James B. Davies, Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks and Edward N. Wolff and published in The Economic Journal in 2010.

Grayson was correct that the United States had the fifth-highest Gini coefficient for wealth in the world, trailing only Denmark, Namibia, Switzerland and Zimbabwe. In other words, the U.S. distribution of wealth was more unequal than all but four other nations.

If the PolitiFact team had paid closer attention, they would have noticed that the numbers on which Grayson relies were not published in any peer-reviewed journal.  The numbers Grayson used ultimately came from an appendix (Excel file) to a working paper that preceded the version published in The Economic Journal. 

PolitiFact reports falsely in claiming that PolitiFact sourced its numbers to the linked "a peer-reviewed paper."  Sift through the linked work (see Update below) from now until doomsday and you won't find "Namibia" mentioned at all nor any comprehensive list of Gini coefficients (identified by PolitiFact as the primary statistic used to identify inequality) for all the nations of the earth.

Wikipedia apparently made no secret of the source of the information.  PolitiFact's research simply missed it (click image for enlarged view):

(clipped from Wikipedia.org)

As we continue evaluating PolitiFact's story we'll obtain some potential clues as to why the appendix did not appear with the published version of the paper.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): American Crossroads and the Clinton take on Obama's jobs plan

Words matter -- We pay close attention to the specific wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain mitigating words or phrases?
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
Amy Hollyfield:  editor

Analysis:

We have here an unusual fact check in that there is no quotation at all from the supposed source of the information, the political action organization American Crossroads.  The fact check concerns accurate quotations of President Bill Clinton and the impression they create as presented in an American Crossroads political ad.

Here's the ad:




Here's the PolitiFact set up:

The ad splices together television news reports highlighting Obama's plan to raise taxes a total of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, then pivots to Clinton. "I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes," Clinton says in what appears to be an interview. "It won't solve the problem."

Between the lines "we ought to be raising taxes," and "it won't solve the problem," the ad jumps -- for just a split-second -- to some other image.

It's a 30 second ad, but the PolitiFact description omits a sizable portion in the beginning using President Obama's own words on taxation:  "The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession."

The ad does not merely use Clinton's words to oppose Obama's proposed tax increase.  It uses Obama's words toward the same purpose.

 PolitiFact:

The cut-away caught our attention because we've seen instances where politician's words were cut in a way that would create a different impression.

Indeed, after further review, that's what American Crossroads did here.

If PolitiFact is correct that the ad creates a different impression than did Clinton's words in context then we should expect to see PolitiFact identify the proper understanding as well as the false impression along with the supporting rationales for each.

The video of Clinton grabbed by American Crossroads comes from a 25-minute September 2011 interview Clinton did with the conservative news website Newsmax.com. The interview was set up in New York, where Clinton was holding the 10th annual meeting of his Clinton Global Initiative project.

We found the original Newsmax.com video. The two lines quoted by American Crossroads come more than three minutes apart, as Clinton was delivering a meandering answer on how to create jobs and fix the flailing American economy.

PolitiFact is correct that the statements occur more than three minutes apart.  The video confirms it.



PolitiFact:

When American Crossroads quoted Clinton as saying, "I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes," they clipped Clinton's full comments short. Here's the full quote, including what American Crossroads left out:

"I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending -- either one -- until we get this economy off the ground. This has been a dead flat economy. And you don't want in something this flat ... if we cut government spending, which I normally would be inclined to do when the deficit's this big, with interest rates near zero you can't get the benefits of it."

So Clinton was as much deriding spending cuts as he was a plan to raise taxes.

PolitiFact is also correct that Clinton disparaged spending cuts as well as tax increases, though it isn't clear why that would have relevance with respect to American Crossroads' use of Clinton's words.  Simply clipping Clinton's words does not misrepresent misuse, or else PolitiFact is acting hypocritically.  Note the ellipsis (...) in middle paragraph above.  In journalistic style an ellipsis indicates missing text. 

PolitiFact:

Clinton went on to praise Obama's plan to continue cuts to the payroll tax, saying it's a proven way to help the economy, before spinning off into a discussion of former President Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Tip O'Neill.

Clinton remained on topic, praising Reagan and O'Neill for disposing of the debt from the savings and loan bailouts which in turn, by Clinton's account, corresponded with a job growth spurt during Reagan's tenure.

PolitiFact:

Later in the interview the second half of the quote comes up. But again, it's shortened.

"I would pay it," Clinton said, referring to a millionaire's tax (though Clinton said that many wealthy New Yorkers like himself wouldn't be affected because they already pay high state and local income taxes that can then be deducted from your federal tax bill).

"It's okay with me, I'd pay more," he said. "But it won't solve the problem."

We still have no rationale from PolitiFact explaining how American Crossroads took Clinton out of context and/or juxtaposed his statements to alter their meaning.  "It's shortened" doesn't cut it without an explanation as to how the shortened version significantly altered the meaning.

PolitiFact:

After the American Crossroads ad was released, Clinton fired back saying the group wrongly implied his opposition to Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy -- sometimes referred to as the "Buffett Rule" -- as well as Obama's jobs plan.

"The Republican group American Crossroads has used a quote from me in a video opposing President Obama's jobs plan and the 'Buffett Rule,'" he said in the statement provided to POLITICO. "The advertisement implies that I opposed the 'Buffett Rule.' In fact, I support both the American Jobs Act and the 'Buffett Rule.' I believe that it's only fair to ask those of us in high-income groups -- who have received the primary benefits of the last decade's economic growth and the majority of its tax cuts as well -- to contribute to solving our long term debt problem.

"What I did say was that the 'Buffett Rule' cannot solve the problem alone. Reducing the debt requires three things: more economic growth, more spending cuts, and more revenue," he said.

Even if Clinton has a spotless reputation for truth-telling we don't take his explanation uncritically, do we?

In the case of the American Crossroads ad we're concerned with Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy.  That is the focus of the ad.

Clinton says American Crossroads presented him falsely as opposing Obama's jobs plan.  That's a half truth.  The ad does not address any aspect of the jobs plan other than the tax increases.  The ad does not address, for example, the payroll tax decrease that Clinton praised.

Clinton further stated that American Crossroads painted him in opposition to the "Buffett Rule."  Again, that's a half truth.  The ad shows Clinton criticizing the tax increase for not addressing the creation of jobs.  It does not include any mention of Clinton's support for such a tax increase during better economic conditions nor does it try to portray Clinton as opposed to tax increases on the rich regardless of circumstances.

Clinton's statement avoids the points made in the American Crossroads ad.  Does Clinton favor raising taxes on a flat economy and does Obama's "Buffett Rule" proposal raise taxes on a flat economy?  Does the tax increase help address the jobs problem, contrary to what Clinton suggested during his interview?

PolitiFact:

American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio defended the ad's quoting of Clinton to PolitiFact Florida, noting that a 30-second ad cannot run two-minute-plus quotes and that the "quotes selected for the ad are the most succinct and relevant clips of Clinton's Newsmax interview, and fairly represent his views."

We see it differently. The ad suggests that Clinton opposes Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy as a means of reducing the deficit. By our review of the interview, Clinton actually appeared to straddle that fence. At one point, he said that he didn't think the country should raise taxes "until we get this economy off the ground." At another point, he said he'd be "okay" with the tax and willing to pay it, though he said in his particular case, he probably won't be affected.

PolitiFact's review of the Clinton interview resulted in a false impression.  Clinton did not straddle the fence, though he was made to appear that way through selective quotation.

Here's an expanded version of the second statement from Clinton, my portion of the transcript in bold, portions used by PolitiFact highlighted in yellow:

What I would like to say both to Speaker Boehner and to the president, "Okay, you've both had your deal.  Go work it out.  Meanwhile focus on putting American back to work now."  Because it just confused Americans.  Americans lost the fact that, whatever you think about this millionaire's surcharge, it--I don't really care because I would pay it but it won't affect me because I already pay the minimum income because I live in New York.  So if you live, anybody that lives in New York, because our state and local taxes are so high and you get to deduct those against your federal taxes, we're already over any threshold anybody can consider.  But, I, you know, it's okay with me, I'd pay more.  But it won't solve the problem.

Clinton's thought, without the digression detailing his opinion of how it affect him, goes like this:  Americans lost the fact that, whatever you think about this millionaire's surcharge, it doesn't solve the problem.


The PolitiFact version turns an irrelevancy into a critical piece of missing information.  Clinton was saying that whether you favor increasing taxes on the rich or not, it doesn't solve the jobs problem. PolitiFact's interpretation contradicts Clinton's intent.


The American Crossroads ad segues from the Clinton quotations to another quotation critical of Obama.  Note the accompanying text in the ad:

"We need jobs not higher taxes."

It falls right into line with Clinton's criticism of Obama's tax hike proposal.  The tax hike does not address the jobs problem.

PolitiFact:

At the least, American Crossroads is guilty of cherry-picking parts of Clinton's statement to best fit into the narrative of its ad. But we think they go one step further by cutting out critical pieces of evidence -- namely that Clinton said he would be "okay" with higher taxes for the wealthy and that he'd pay additional taxes if he was required to.

Clinton's voice and image were no doubt selected specifically because it'd be a stinging rebuke of Obama's policies -- from a fellow Democrat.

But viewer beware. We rate this claim False.

As explained above, PolitiFact miscategorized the evidence from the context.  Clinton's general support for taxing the rich at higher rates, by his own words, does not mitigate the failure of the tax increases to address the jobs problem, and the latter was the focus of the American Crossroads ad.

With full consideration of the context it's hard to see any significant flaw in the ad's use of the Clinton quotations.  The biggest failing is the juxtaposition of one quotation concerned with the weak economy while the other was focused on jobs.  Given that the two are closely linked a criticism along those lines seems like hairsplitting.

On top of everything else, it's extraordinarily difficult to see how PolitiFact could justify a "False" rating for this item.  As noted, American Crossroads doesn't make any sort of concrete claim.  The ad in question simply quotes President Clinton.  And the quotations are apparently perfectly accurate.  If they were taken entirely out of context to mean the opposite of what Clinton intended then PolitiFact's definitions of "Half True" or "Mostly False" (formerly "Barely True") appear to fit better than the "False" rating:

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

BARELY TRUE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

The tag "journalists reporting badly" will apply.

The grades:

Aaron Sharockman: F

Amy Hollyfield: F

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Bill Nelson and provisional ballot rejection

To assess the truth for a numbers claim, the biggest factor is the underlying message.
--Bill Adair

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis:

I wonder if Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) knows that the most important aspect of a numbers claim is the underlying message?  Even more so, I wonder if PolitiFact staffers Aaron Sharockman and John Bartosek realize it.

Nelson used the provisional ballot stat to bolster his claim that a Republican bill affecting election procedures targeted women and young people.  That's the way PolitiFact tells the story, anyway.  Good luck finding a quotation from Nelson making that clear.

Trust PolitiFact.

PolitiFact:

Republicans say it's a way to eliminate possible voter fraud. But Democrats like Nelson say it's an (sic) way to suppress the votes of people most likely to change their names (women) and people most likely to move frequently (young people and college students). At a press conference with Democratic state legislators on May 2, Bay News 9 and Central Florida 13 reporter Troy Kinsey asked Nelson what was so wrong with people having to cast a provisional ballot.

"Look at history," Nelson answered. "Look at the provisional ballots in 2008. Fifty-five percent of them were discounted. Fifty-five percent of the people who cast a provisional ballot in the last presidential election -- their vote did not count."

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair says the underlying message is the most important aspect of a numbers claim.  Since history suggests that PolitiFact often fails to bother separating the underlying message from the literal numbers claim, let's pause to evaluate Nelson's statement.

First, we have a literal numbers claim, that 55 percent of provisional ballots--presumably in Florida--were not counted.

Second, though more importantly using Adair's guidelines, Nelson sends the message that having to use a provisional ballot serves to suppress votes.  We can't reasonably presume Nelson to mean he wants illegal votes protected, however.  If we take that course then things like age restrictions on voting likewise count as voter suppression efforts.  Nelson is reasonably taken as talking about suppression of legal votes.

PolitiFact's subsequent assay of the facts shows that Florida's provisional ballots were considered unevenly according to locale.  For example, Broward County rejected 94 percent of its provisional ballots while Duval County rejected a mere 19 percent.  The differences in the numbers prompt quite a few questions, but the PolitiFact assessment is sadly superficial, limited to a quotation of a Pew Center on the States report mentioning some differences in rejection criteria.  PolitiFact offers no suggestions as to the significance of the rejection criteria, moving quickly to focus on the literal numbers claim:

In total, Pew reported that 35,635 Florida voters submitted provisional ballots in the 2008 fall election (.42 percent of the total 8.4 million who cast ballots for president). Of the 35,635 ballots submitted, 17,314 were counted and 18,321 were not counted.

To line that up with Nelson's claim, that means 51.4 percent of the provisional ballots submitted were not counted for one reason or another.

As Nelson could justify rounding to 55 from 52.5, his number represents an inflation of only about 2 percent.  So the literal claim as to the numbers is close, and we can file the figures away to contribute to our evaluation of the PolitiMath theorem of mathematical accuracy.

PolitiFact:

State Department spokesman Chris Cate also provided us with provisional ballot statistics from the 2010 general election. They are worth noting because the percentage of provisional ballots ultimately discounted was cut in half when compared to 2008. In the 2010 fall election, local canvassing boards considered 13,181 provisional ballots. Canvassing boards wound up counting 9,790 of the votes and tossing out 3,391 provisional ballots -- or 25.7 percent of the total number of provisional ballots.

Nelson said that "55 percent of the people who cast a provisional ballot (in Florida) in the last presidential election -- their vote did not count." Two slight clarifications: Nelson is slightly high on the percentage claim, and he fails to note that the percentage of provisional ballots counted improved greatly in 2010. We rate this claim Mostly True.

It is worth noting, or rather emphasizing, that PolitiFact has implicitly detected an underlying message that figures in the final ruling.  After all, if the question was only the percentage of provisional ballots rejected in the 2008 election then the number of provisional ballots rejected in the 2010 election is entirely irrelevant.  Yet PolitiFact justified dropping Nelson from "True" down to "Mostly True" based in part on the 2010 numbers.

PolitiFact's attempt to evaluate the underlying message qualifies as severely underdeveloped, unfortunately.

As noted above, the reasonable version of Nelson's argument hinges on the number of legitimate votes lost as a result of the provisional ballot process.  PolitiFact fails to address the issue--a great yawning hole in the story.  The difference in the percentages of provisional ballot rejection, by itself, means nothing.  What matters is the extent to which the percentages reflect the loss of legitimate votes.  And that's quite the can of worms that PolitiFact leaves untouched.

It is a type of voter fraud to vote in the wrong precinct.

I'll repeat that to give it time to sink in.

It is a type of voter fraud to vote in the wrong precinct.

Precincts exist for a reason.  They are intended to help limit who can vote on what.  New York residents should not vote in Florida elections, for example.  For that reason, one of the statistics bandied about by PolitiFact (quoted from the Pew Center report) caused me some consternation:  "In Broward County, 100 percent of rejected provisional ballots were not counted because they were cast by voters not registered in the state."

Broward, one of Florida's most populous counties, was the one that rejected 94 percent of its provisional ballots (see above).

The Pew report, in truth, provides only a wisp of support for Nelson's underlying argument.  That wisp comes from the fact that poll workers sometimes make mistakes in handling provisional voters and their ballots bold emphasis added):

Finally, more than 27,000 or 6 percent of rejected ballots were disallowed because of various errors, including incomplete provisional ballot envelopes, missing or non-matching signatures on the provisional ballot applications, incomplete applications, and envelopes that contained no provisional ballots. While a number of these errors were likely committed by voters themselves, some were the result of administrative problems at the polls.

That 27,000 was a national figure, by the way.

It simply isn't clear, contrary to Nelson's argument, that rejecting provisional ballots is a bad thing.  We don't want New York residents voting in Florida even if they are women or college students.  Nor do we want to make it easy for people to vote in the wrong precinct.

Nelson's underlying argument is a red herring offered with PolitiFact's tacit approval.  The vast majority of rejected provisional ballots get rejected for good reason.  And for some reason PolitiFact did not seem to think it was important to Nelson's argument.

Go figure.



The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F


Afters:

It has been argued that provisional ballots should count as legitimate votes to the extent that the votes align with the choices available in a given precinct.  All Florida precincts vote for governor of the state, for example.  While the suggestion addresses, at least partly, the problem of fixing elections with imported votes, it produces an odd result.  Why should voters using the provisional ballot carry a privilege unavailable to voters who turned up at the correct precinct?

Bottom line, this controversy underscores the difference between the Republican and Democrat views of the voting process.  Republicans tend to try to restrict voting to those with at least some qualifications.  Democrats tend to want as many votes cast as possible.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Eric Eisnaugle and Mickey Mouse's voter registration

Bias 
Any trend in the collection, analysis, interpretation, publication or review of data that can lead to conclusions that are systematically different from the truth.
--J. A. Last, "A dictionary of epidemiology"

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

Sharockman and Bartosek have collaborated on a sensational example of selection bias.  Let's observe their method as they quote a series of claims by Florida state representative Eric Eisnaugle:

"We have seen allegations of fraud, (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) investigations. (We have seen) falsifying of hundreds of registrations, including the registration of an actor who was already deceased at the time. In another case, Mickey Mouse was registered to vote.

"In yet another case, hundreds or thousands ... of students were registered to vote without their knowledge after they simply signed a petition, having no idea that their information was then going to be turned around and used to register their names on the voter rolls here in Florida."

The claims are:

• a deceased actor had a voter registration application falsified
• a cartoon rodent was registered to vote
• signers of a petition were registered to vote without their knowledge

As a matter of stated policy, PolitiFact tries to separate claims and grade them individually.  PolitiFact will presumably grade each of the claims separately.  Or maybe not so much:

Eisnaugle made three different fraud claims, and we plan to touch on each in this fact check to see if they're true. But for the sake of the Truth-O-Meter, we're going to home in on the line that stuck out because of the absurdity of it, if true: "Mickey Mouse was registered to vote."

PolitiFact chose the most potentially absurd of the three claims to position the needle of the "Truth-O-Meter."

What about the claims that don't count on the "Truth-O-Meter"?

PolitiFact:

The group workers turned in 1,400 cards, of which 888 were found to be fraudulent. Included among the fraudulent voter applications -- deceased actor Paul Newman.

That one sounds true.

PolitiFact:

The workers would have the students sign a petition to legalize marijuana or a petition urging stiffer sentences for child abusers. Then, workers would have students unknowingly fill out a second form registering them to vote as Republicans.

The claim about a third-party group registering students surreptitiously also sounds true.  Eisnaugle's not bad on the Meatloaf-O-Meter, even if the Mickey Mouse claim doesn't pan out.

And what of the Mickey Mouse claim?  Was Walt Disney's signature creation registered to vote in Florida?

It comes down to the meaning of "registered to vote."

When I read the PolitiFact story, I took "registered to vote" to mean that Mickey was eligible to walk up on election day, had he desired, and cast his vote.  Was my view prejudiced by the accompanying story?  Could be.  I can't say for sure.  What I do know is that when I listed to Eisnaugle speak, I took him to mean that Mickey had been registered in the same sense that Paul Newman had been registered--via the creation of a fraudulent voter registration application.

I encourage readers to conduct their own tests.  Download the video by clicking here and watch Eisnaugle speak at about the 2:28 mark (props to PolitiFact for providing the link even if the alternate interpretation was never considered in the story).

The context supports the interpretation scorned by PolitiFact.  All of it surrounding the Mickey Mouse example concerns the actions of third-party registration groups.

PolitiFact did not address the comments of Lyndsey Cruley, spokeswoman for Florida's House Republicans:

"In sum, although Rep. Eisnaugle’s remarks could be interpreted, if taken out of context, in two different ways, he clearly intended to demonstrate that some third-party registration organizations have committed fraudulent actions here in Florida."

Cruley's explanation fits the facts.  Why wouldn't PolitiFact acknowledge the point?

And if PolitiFact is narrowly focused on the truth of the potentially absurd registration of Mickey Mouse, then why does PolitiFact editorialize regarding the bill Eisnaugle was extolling?

PolitiFact:

What's worth noting is that, in all three stories Eisnaugle cited, the fraud was exposed. The only real impact was that students in 2004 were registered as Republicans when they wanted to be registered as something else. It's also worth noting that it's unclear how HB 1355 -- had it been part of election law -- would have altered any of the above three scenarios.

I suppose Eisnaugle should have used examples of unexposed fraud.  Though how he would know about unexposed fraud ought to cause its own set of suspicions.  That, in fact, is one of the reasons why bills such as the one in question may prove helpful.  Our system makes it pretty easy to hide fraud.  For example, felons may have illegally voted in Florida's elections.  How does one detect it other than by catching them in the act?

In the end, PolitiFact's editorializing misses the mark.  Eisnaugle did not claim that the examples he cited would have been altered with the bill in effect.  He cited the claim to silence the complaint that no problem with election fraud exists in Florida.


The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Flunk factors:  Ignoring the obvious charitable interpretation of Eisnaugle's statement, editorializing about Eisnaugle's point while disclaiming interest in Eisnaugle's point (not to mention missing the latter).  The selection bias problem is not specific to Sharockman and Bartosek.  That is a systemic problem.


Afters:

The insidious effects of the type of selection bias found in this PolitiFact story have their full effect when PolitiFact encourages readers to look at the collected statements about a person in order to develop an impression about the person.  Using Eisnaugle as an example, the reader of Eisnaugle's PolitiFact "report card" (they actually call it that!) would see a lone "False" rating.  Yet if PolitiFact had chosen either of the other two statements to rate, Eisnaugle would have a lone "True" rating.  Or if PolitiFact had rated all three, Eisnaugle could expect to have two "True" ratings and one "False" rating.

What good is a grade point average created under these types of conditions?