The blogger with whom I share the PolitiFact Bias blog, Jeff Dyberg, discovered an apparent contradiction in PolitiFact's reporting on health care reform.
In 2009 and recently in 2012, PolitiFact ruled it "False" that preventive health care saves money.
Jeff discovered a 2008 story in which PolitiFact reported that preventive care saves money.
Obama's plan essentially takes today's system and seeks to expand it to the uninsured. It creates national pools for individuals to buy their own cheaper insurance. It increases eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. And it has several strategies to rein in costs for everyone, such as streamlining medical record-keeping and emphasizing preventive care.
In 2008, PolitiFact went along with the accepted wisdom that preventive care saves money.
Perhaps the 2008 story needs a correction? The responsible thing would be to let PolitiFact know about the problem. How can they fix the problem if they don't know about it?
March 8, 2012:
Dear Angie Drobnic Holan,
cc Amy Hollyfield
My friend Jeff Dyberg just found something interesting, and it has us wondering.
Here's what he found in a 2008 PolitiFact article (yours):
"And it has several strategies to rein in costs for everyone, such as streamlining medical record-keeping and emphasizing preventive care."
As you're probably aware, PolitiFact has since ruled it "False" that preventive care saves money.
The question, then, is how PolitiFact's process led it from reporting as a matter of fact that preventive care saves money to fact checking the same claim. Did the news cycle generate the question or did somebody at PolitiFact suddenly question the prevailing assumption without external prompting?
The secondary question is whether the 2008 item will warrant a correction. I think we both know the answer to that one. ;-)
It's still early. We'll see what happens.
Update 1:
Jeff Dyberg notes in the commentary section that The New York Times weighed in earlier this month with a story suggesting that PolitiFact's first example of a cost-saving measure, moving to electronic record-keeping, may not cut costs any more than does preventive care:
Computerized patient records are unlikely to cut health care costs and
may actually encourage doctors to order expensive tests more often, a
study published on Monday concludes.
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
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.
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.
Professionals in the fact checking business ought to know hyperbole when they hear it, or at least ought to consider it as an explanation for some statements that do not seem to add up when taken as literally true.
Regarding the fact checking professionals at PolitiFact, there stands considerable doubt. This anecdote from a recent journalism symposium at Haverford College illustrates the point (bold emphasis added):
Amy Hollyfield, the government and politics editor for the St. Petersburg Times who runs the paper’s fact-checking website Politifact.com, detailed a recent national story that Politifact helped to break. During the recent budget debates, Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona) claimed on the floor of the Senate that “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does” is abortions. Politifact checked this figure with Planned Parenthood’s own records and found that, in fact, 3% of its services are abortion-related. When CNN sought comment from the Senator regarding Politifact’s fact-checking, a Kyl staffer responded that “his remark was not intended to be a factual statement.” Hollyfield laughed as she told the story, but said that stories like this one are why her organization exists. “That’s what our mission is,” she said, “to hold politicians accountable.”
Hollyfield, who ought to know better, is apparently among those who take "not intended to be a factual statement" as something akin to "not telling the truth." As noted here at Sublime Bloviations, the explanation from Kyl's office is consistent with a statement employing hyperbole.
Why would PolitiFact totally ignore that explanation?
Sometimes PolitiFact fact checks a strange fact. Other times PolitiFact checks a fact strangely. This item falls in the latter category.
To wit:
On Oct. 24, 2010, in their fifth debate of the campaign, Crist strove to paint Rubio as a rigid idealogue who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and didn’t support stem cell research. Then he turned it up a notch, saying Rubio had said that folks who didn’t agree with him ought to leave the country.
"You know, these are extreme views that I am not comfortable with," Crist said. "(Rubio) took it to a point so much so that (he) said that, you know, people who essentially don't agree with him, ought to leave the country, like Keith Olbermann."
The quotation features editorial helps (parenthetical material) prominently. What were Crist's words in context?
MEEK: Let me just say this. Let me just say this. All right, we know why the governor is running as an independent, because he couldn't beat Marco Rubio. OK? Let's just put it that way.
(CROSSTALK)
MEEK: No, that's OK. No, no, no, no, no, wait a minute.
CROWLEY: One second, let me just ask the audience--
MEEK: Let me finish.
CROWLEY: You're going to cut into our time and they want to talk. So--
MEEK: Let me finish -- let me--
CRIST: I want to speak for myself on this point, if I can.
MEEK: You just spoke, Governor. Wait a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: Why don't you go ahead and finish your time. I promise you--
CRIST: The reason I'm running as an independent is because it's what the people want and it's what's right with my own heart. I have got to be honest with myself. The Republican Party and the right wing of that party went so far right, it's exactly why Marco Rubio stayed there, it's exactly the same reason that I left. He wants to overturn -- listen to me, women watching -- overturn Roe versus Wade. He does not support stem cell research. You know, these are extreme views that I am not comfortable with. He took it to a point so much so that said that, you know, people who essentially don't agree with him, ought to leave the country, like Keith Olbermann.
Crist's statement is a tad on the vague side. He goes from two concrete examples of supposedly "extreme views" to saying that Rubio "took it to a point so much ... that people who essentially don't agree with him, ought to leave the country ..." Took what to that point? The two concrete examples? Or extremism generally, so that we should understand the latter as just another example of Rubio's supposed extremism?
PolitiFact gives no attention to the details. After quoting Crist author Bowers simply asks "Could it be true?" and passes on the justification provided by the Crist campaign:
Then, he closed the speech with a thought he said originated from Glenn Beck, FOX News' popular conservative talk show host,.
"There are millions of people in America that hate our country, so why can't we just do a trade?" Rubio said. "We'll send you Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann, and you can send us people that actually love this country and want to help us build it."
At first blush, this glove doesn't fit. It is unlikely that a trade could be arranged where millions of people are traded for other millions. This suggests the possibility that Rubio was making a joke. Even a joke can have an underlying argument, of course. But is it reasonable to suggest that the underlying argument is that those who don't agree with Rubio ought to leave the country?
This reed is a bit too thin to support the argument, and Bowers came up with little else:
Spokesman Alex Burgos offered this quick response from his BlackBerry after the debate: "It's true what Marco said, and we appreciate the governor bringing it up."
Given that Rubio's statement was about making a trade based on love of country rather than a deportation program based on agreement with Rubio, Burgos' response makes little sense.
Hoping to make some sense of Burgos' message, I asked PolitiFact writer Becky Bowers about it. Bowers promptly responded to my email message and said she sent Burgos Crist's statement along with material from the Post and asked for the campaign's response.
That didn't do much to help me understand the reply from Burgos. It was enough for Bowers, however:
Given the evidence, and both sides’ endorsement of it, we rate Crist’s statement True.
The evidence doesn't do much at all to support Crist's presentation, for the reasons noted above. And the endorsement of both sides is effectively irrelevant. If A says X is black and white and then A and B agree that A said X is not black and white it remains true that A said X is black and white. A and B are thus incorrect in the later reports.
Bowers appears to have placed the opinions of Crist and Burgos over the facts, and Bowers did precious little to check facts other than to seek Burgos' opinion. Minus a complete account of Rubio's speech, there was too much doubt about his message, based on the words he used, to judge Crist's version "True." A tape of the speech would likely have helped demonstrate that Rubio spoke in jest about the proposed trade.
The grades:
Becky Bowers: F
Amy Hollyfield: F
Failure to note the incongruity between the Crist claim and the Crist campaign's supposed supporting evidence results in the failing grade. This was a fact check without any real fact checking. Doing a little research isn't always enough to support a determination, and in this case the PolitiFact team was obliged to largely ignore what primary source evidence there was in making the ruling.
Afters:
I still don't know what Alex Burgos was thinking when he gave the campaign's response to this issue. Did he really believe that Rubio was saying that those who disagree with him ought to leave the country? That seems doubtful, and if we were to suppose it true then it requires some explanation beyond the facts at hand.
Perhaps Burgos meant merely to affirm Rubio's message as, roughly: "America: Love it or leave it." If that's what he meant then his attempt to express it pretty much counts as incompetent.
The fact-check site PolitiFact was awarded its 2008 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting based on 13 submissions to the Pulitzer committee. In this post I evaluate the sixth of the submissions based on hinted-at guidelines for judgment of journalism's highest standards such as accuracy and fairness.
The seventh story concerns Barack Obama's birth certificate, and there is much to like in the story written by Amy Hollyfield. Hollyfield includes information that serves to correct bad information on quite a few points and for the most part communicates the information concisely. I'm inclined to grade the entry favorably but with a few caveats.
The version of the story posted at the Pulitzer site does not rate the truth of any particular claim. If Hollyfield was testing the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the case is reasonably settled in the affirmative. If, however, the entry was intended to put an end to all reasonable questions associated with Obama's birth certificate, then the story fails in that task. The version of the story posted at PolitiFact.com carries no Truth-O-Meter rating for a particular claim, either, for what that's worth.
My first caveat concerns a minor issue of fairness:
It started as a whisper, a trickle of nagging doubt.
"As a concerned citizen, I'm wondering if there isn't something fishy going on with the Obama certificate."
"I have serious doubts about the purported 'birth certificate' you were sent."
"Something doesn't smell right."
Soon, e-mails and blog posts were flying. As the pace quickened, the tone sharpened.
"You should be apologizing ... for your misinformation regarding BO bogus birth certificate, that you claimed was genuine!"
At full throttle, the accusations are explosive and unrelenting, the writers emboldened by the anonymity and reach of the Internet.
And you can't help but ask: How do you prove something to people who come to the facts believing, out of fear or hatred or maybe just partisanship, that they're being tricked?
It isn't the responsibility of reporters to prove anything. All they need to do is report. It isn't even obligatory--to the contrary--for a reporter to muse in print regarding the motives of those who might doubt their stories. The story could have done without that last paragraph, and in particular could have done without "out of fear or hatred or maybe just partisanship." It wasn't needed, and to some extent feeds the notion that Republicans generally fear and hate Obama, some to the extent that they glom on to doubts about his citizenship.
My second caveat comes from the first and third quotations. There is something fishy going on with Obama's birth certificate and it doesn't smell quite right. But Hollyfield's story doesn't mention it at all.
Fishy: Obama released a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth," but has never released a copy of his Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth." The latter provides more information than the former. That the campaign has not released it in the face of the types of questions mentioned in the PolitiFact story is somewhat hard to explain unless the more detailed document has information on it that Obama would prefer to keep private. Or unless the state of Hawaii will not give a copy of it to anybody at all including Mr. Obama. Assuming Obama is hiding information, it might involve something mundane like listing the president's name as "Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama."
What specific information might the certificate include? That is uncertain, as Hawaii apparently had a number of methods available to officially record the birth of a child. Find an example of one "Certificate of Live Birth" from near newborn Obama's time here. Compare it with the image of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" linked on the Pulitzer site version of the PolitiFact story.
Caveats aside, I can grade Hollyfield's effort a 7 on a 0-10 scale where 10 represents the highest standards of journalism and therefore slightly Pulitzer-recommended if taken merely as a fact-check of whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
As a fact-check of the fishiness surrounding the overall record of Obama's birth, I'd give Hollyfield a 5. But I'll grant benefit of the doubt and regard the story in the former light.
March 27, 2010: Reworded the first sentence of the third paragraph for clarity, and added a sentence to the third-to-last paragraph. Feb. 3, 2011: Revised language that refers to the subject matter as the sixth story from PolitiFact's Pulitzer list. Mishandling of file folder resulted in the loss of the original evaluation of the sixth story and the subsequent misidentification of the seventh story as the sixth.
Sometimes I can't believe what I'm reading. And that is a concern when I'm reading material that claims to be checking the facts of others.
The issue:
The fact checkers:
Angie Drobnic Holan: writer, researcher
Amy Hollyfield: editor
Analysis:
Writer/researcher Angie Drobnic Holan accurately conveys the context of President Obama's remarks. Mr. Obama was highlighting the steps he took to bolster the economy. I'll provide additional context since the underlying argument, if any, may arise from other portions of the context.
Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)
I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)
(Yellow highlights added)
Obama argues that he cut taxes in a way that stimulated the economy. That is his underlying argument. But this is yet another instance where PolitiFact has no interest in the underlying argument. Drobnic keeps a narrow focus on the 95 percent figure.
Last week was a great week for news. The aftermath of the underwear bomber attack featured great dollops of controversy, as did the machinations surrounding the health care reform bill snaking its way through Congress.
Controversial news cycles tend to produce work for fact checkers. By himself, President Obama produced the following potential fact checks:
"(O)ver the past year, we've taken the fight to al Qaeda and its allies wherever they plot and train, be it in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Yemen and Somalia, or in other countries around the world."
"Immediately after the attack, I ordered concrete steps to protect the American people: new screening and security for all flights, domestic and international; more explosive detection teams at airports; more air marshals on flights; and deepening cooperation with international partners."
"Guantanamo prison ... has ... become a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda. In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula."
"(T)he Recovery Act included the largest investment in education by the federal government in history while preventing more than 300,000 teachers and school workers from being fired because of state budget shortfalls."
"(W)e've sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share -- to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security."
"The Recovery Act has been a major force in breaking the trajectory of this recession and stimulating growth and hiring."
During the week I hear claims like this from various government officials and I pause at times to wonder whether the statements will receive attention from PolitiFact, the fact checking folks at the St. Petersburg Times.
Meanwhile, I read that Rudy Giuliani said during an interview that there had been no terrorist attacks under George W. Bush. I thought "There is the typical PolitiFact fact check."
This item fell in my lap not long after I wrote how PolitiFact's increased emphasis on rating punditry tended to pull PolitiFact into the punditry arena from its supposed location in objective journalism. This new item falls right in line with that analysis, while also underscoring criticisms collected in my review of PolitiFact's 2009.
The issue:
The fact checkers:
Bill Adair: writer, researcher
Amy Hollyfield: editor
Analysis:
Take another look at the deck portion of the PolitiFact story, reproduced above: "President Obama 'doesn't ... want to admit we're at war.'" Compare that with the subsequent paraphrase: "Cheney says Obama won't admit the U.S. at war against terrorists."
Red flags, anyone? If the baseball announcer says "Ryan didn't want to throw a hanging curve, there" does the fact that Ryan threw a hanging curveball prove that Ryan wanted to throw a hanging curveball? Taking away the "want" changes the argument.
With red flags now waving in the breeze, let us turn to Bill Adair's story:
In his latest attack on President Barack Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney seized on the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jetliner to suggest that Obama is weak on terrorism.
Forgiving Adair's flirtation with opinion journalism ("latest attack," "seized"), I think Adair has nicely captured Cheney's underlying argument. Take careful note, because this is the last you'll see of the underlying argument from Adair.
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."
And back to Adair:
Cheney's comments echo a frequent criticism by conservatives that President Obama does not use the phrase "war on terror." We rated that True when it was made by talk show host Sean Hannity in November 2009. We noted in our ruling that Obama had said he didn't use the more general phrase "war on terror" because he viewed the conflict as a war against "some terrorist organizations."
With his statement to Politico, Cheney is going farther than Hannity did, directly alleging that Obama will not "admit we're at war."
In a few short paragraphs, Adair has reproduced the flawed logic that appeared in the deck of the story. Adair's summary is patently unfair to Cheney. Cheney referred directly to a number of features of Obama's response to terrorism, and those features obviously represented the ways in which Obama did not want to acknowledge the state of war. Supposing that Cheney referred literally to the mention of a state of war represents third rate straw man creation.
Astoundingly, we ended up with this straw man despite the fact that Adair adroitly identified Cheney's true argument in his first paragraph.
Adair proceeds to rattle off a few useless examples of Obama referring to a state of war with terrorists before reaching his concluding paragraph:
Cheney has offered lots of criticism of Obama in the past year (of the claims we've rated, Cheney has earned a True and a Mostly True). His remarks here go beyond opinion because he repeatedly says that Obama won't acknowledge that the United States is at war. But even a cursory examination of Obama's statements shows this one is preposterous. Obama has often said the United States is at war against terrorist organizations -- and has ordered a massive increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight that war. So Cheney's comment isn't just False, it's ridiculously so. Pants on Fire!
With all due respect to Adair, who is the main driving force behind PolitiFact, the ridiculous aspect of this story is his avoidance of Cheney's underlying argument in favor of the focus on a highly uncharitable and highly improbable understanding of Cheney's remarks.
Cheney provided a concrete set of examples in support of his criticism of Obama. Those examples were the context of his remark about pretending we are not at war. By ignoring that context, Adair committed a big journalistic no-no: He took a quotation way out of context.
The grades:
Bill Adair: F
Amy Hollyfield: F
Afters:
How does Adair direct PolitiFact into punditry with this item?
By accurately identifying Cheney's underlying argument in the first paragraph in conjunction with a "Pants On Fire" ruling and the associated graphic, Adair succeeded in creating the impression that the true argument was discredited instead of the mere destruction of Adair's straw man.
This is among the worst sorts of things to run under the banner of objective journalism. Adair might as well have appeared on the Hannity Show and screamed "Cheney doesn't know what he's talking about!" above the din.
But at least if he had done it during an opinion segment nobody would mistake it for objective journalism.
