Grading PolitiFact: Obama's "Julia" and Medicare

Context matters -- We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

I've written quite a bit about PolitiFact's problem with selection bias.  This fact check serves as an excellent example of a related and perhaps even more pernicious form of bias, that arising from the selection of a story's focus.  Two stories dealing with the same topic, such as the Medicare claim in the Obama campaign's "Julia" ad, can turn out very differently.  And the ideology of the writer or editor can easily alter the story focus.


The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers:  writer, researcher
Angie Drobnic Holan:  editor


Analysis:

As I pointed out in an earlier review of a "Julia" ad fact check, the context of the Obama campaign's claims about Mitt Romney has to do with hypothetical comparisons between her life under Obama's policies and Romney's policies.  Here's a closeup of the relevant part of the ad:

(click image for larger view)

For Obama we see the best-case scenario.  For Romney we get the worst-case scenario.  Medicare "could" end as we know it under either president's policies extrapolated into the future.  In Obama's case Medicare could end through a rationing regime.  In Romney's case it would end by adding expenses for recipients of the benefits to help mitigate the third-party payment dynamic that makes Medicare spending unsustainable.  Obama's argument is cherry-picked.

PolitiFact ignores Obama's point of comparison, narrowing the focus specifically to the claim regarding Romney's plan for Medicare:

We wondered, under Romney’s policies, is it true that, "Medicare could end as we know it, leaving Julia with nothing but a voucher to buy insurance, which means $6,350 extra per year for a similar plan"?

PolitiFact, at least for purposes of this fact check, does not wonder whether it is fair and proper for the Obama campaign to compare the cherry-picked rosy picture of Medicare under Obama with the cherry-picked bleak prospects for Medicare under Romney's supposed plan.  Julia's prospects under Romney could have read "Julia enrolls in Medicare, helping her to afford preventive care and the prescription drugs she needs."

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, PolitiFact did find a few things wrong with the ad.

1)  It bases its statement of Romney's position on the older Paul Ryan budget proposal.  Romney has said he agrees in principle with the bipartisan Wyden/Ryan plan which is similar in some ways to Ryan's old plan and different in others.  Plus Romney has a plan of his own about which we know few specifics.

2)  Because of the outdated analysis, the ad has no foundation for its claim about the $6,350 voucher figure it cites.

3)  Various features in each of the plans undercut the claim that "Julia" would end up with "nothing but a voucher to buy insurance."

But the news for the Obama campaign wasn't all bad.

PolitiFact originally rated the claim "False," but after "readers" pointed out an error in the story, PolitiFact reconsidered and upgraded the rating to "Mostly False."  Woohoo.

What was the error?

PolitiFact: 

(R)eaders pointed out we had incorrectly said that the Wyden-Ryan and Romney plans for Medicare offered traditional fee-for-service Medicare alongside a premium-support or "voucher" system for purchasing private insurance. Instead, both plans offer traditional Medicare inside of a new premium-support system, as another plan that competes with private insurance.

One might well wonder why that fact makes a difference.  Unfortunately, PolitiFact made the original story unavailable.  That makes finding all the specific changes difficult.  But the summary paragraph likely includes most or all of the justification for the higher rating.

PolitiFact:

The Obama campaign ties Romney to an outdated plan with less generous spending growth and no traditional Medicare option. Romney does support a voucher-like system, but the graphic ignores critical facts that would give a different impression about his plan. We rate the claim Mostly False.

See, the Romney plan is "voucher-like" so saying his plan could only give "Julia" a voucher is true enough to qualify as "Mostly False."

By narrowing the focus to a fine point PolitiFact locates a portion with sufficient truth to avoid a "False" rating.  The problem with the fact check isn't the rating on this narrow point.  The problem comes from PolitiFact failing to provide any mention of the way the particle of truth powers a dynamo of deception.  The ad's argument is a stinker.  PolitiFact's ruling gives it more cover than it deserves.


The grades: 

Becky Bowers: D
Angie Drobnic Holan:  D

I've seen so many fact checks much worse than this one from PolitiFact that perhaps I'm being overly generous.  Bottom line:  A serious fact check takes into account the underlying argument and the context.  The overall argument of the Medicare portion of the "Julia" ad was deceptive and designed to scare voters with its manipulated comparison.  PolitiFact did not allow its focus to fall on the main issue.

Grading PolitiFact: Approving a "Julia" misdirection

Context matters -- We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

Sometimes you just have to tip your hat to PolitiFact for its ability to tease a grain of truth out of a highly misleading presentation.

On with the evaluation.


The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers: writer, researcher
Bill Adair:  editor


Analysis:

The Obama campaign released a Web-based audiovisual presentation designed to play up the contrast between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Note that Romney threatens Julia's idyllic life story.  That's the context.

PolitiFact:

The cartoon "The Life of Julia," compares the candidates' impact on Julia at a dozen points in her life.  At age 23, she’s shown reading a newspaper with the headline, "Equal pay 4 equal work." She’s starting her career as a Web designer.

"Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she’ll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay," the graphic says.

The "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" is very probably widely misunderstood.  It would more accurately go by the name of "The Lilly Ledbetter Exemption From Statute of Limitations Concerns For Fair Compensation Suits."  Admittedly the latter is quite a mouthful.  In a nutshell, the Act doesn't provide for equal pay.  It allows people to sue for existing equal pay rights years after the alleged discrimination took place, shifting a very difficult burden of proof onto an employer.  And in that context, the phrasing from the Obama Campaign is practically Clintonian in its weaselly use of words (take a bow, campaign staff):  Julia "Knows she'll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay" because the statute of limitations doesn't apply.  Of course the majority of people seeing the ad probably have no idea that's what it means.  And sometimes PolitiFact is concerned about campaign materials that create a distorted view of reality.  But not this day.

PolitiFact notes the intended contrast:

Romney, on the other hand, "has refused to say whether he would have vetoed or signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act," the graphic says.

Horrors.  Seriously, it's a fear-based message.  Women are supposed to fear that Romney would threaten equal work for equal pay.  PolitiFact often brings its most heated criticism to fear-based messaging.  But not this day.

Toward the good, PolitiFact properly starts tracking the key message:

We wondered: Did Romney refuse to say whether he would have vetoed or signed the act? And what would that mean for Julia?

What would it mean for Julia if Romney refused to say whether he would have vetoed or signed the act?  That's the key to the ad.  The ad tries to create worry about rights to equal pay regardless of gender if Romney wins the presidency.  The implication is that Romney represents some type of threat.

For the sake of expediency, let's assume that PolitiFact suitably confirms that Romney "refused" to say whether he would have vetoed or signed the act.  We'll follow the key point of the ad instead of the factoid that supposedly supports the ad's implication.

PolitiFact:

Romney did refuse to say whether he would have signed the bill. But he also said he supported "equal pay for women" and had "no intention of changing that law."

PolitiFact infers, rightly I think, that Romney's reference to "that law" refers specifically to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  He wouldn't change it, he says.  So what is the consequence for Julia if Romney refuses to say whether he would have signed it?

PolitiFact concludes:

The Obama campaign said Romney "has refused to say whether he would have vetoed or signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act." That’s essentially what happened in Romney’s ABC News interview in April, but the claim leaves out some details that matter to Julia.

The relevant point for Julia isn't whether Romney would sign the bill — it's already the law — but his decision not to change it. Romney also said he  "certainly support(s) equal pay for women," and has "no intention of changing that law."

Still, the Obama campaign is correct that he dodged the question, so we rate the claim Mostly True.

Amazing, no?  The main point of the ad was without merit, but since it is trivially true that Romney refused to say whether he would have signed the bill, PolitiFact rules it "Mostly True."

PolitiFact doesn't always use this standard.  Just ask Mitt Romney.

Romney recently released an ad pointing out that unemployment for American youth is double that for the rest of the population.  PolitiFact found it true but irrelevant since the unemployment rate is nearly always approximately double for that demographic.  Apparently it's not supposed to matter even if the unemployment rate for the general population is high.  Romney ended with a "Half True" rating.

Is the Romney ad more misleading than the Obama presentation?  Seriously?


The grades:

Becky Bowers:  F
Bill Adair:  F

PolitiFact discounted the context of the ad where it counted.

I'd love to see a journalist ask Bill Adair to coherently explain why the Romney rating is lower than the Obama rating.  Though I suppose I can ask him myself, since I'm 99 percent certain he drops by for the occasional visit.

How about it, Mr. Adair?  You have my email address.  Drop me a line and explain why Obama receives the "Mostly True" while Romney gets the "Half True."  What's the objective dividing line between the two cases?  I'll publish it in full if granted permission.

PolitiFlub: Engaging Rick Perry

I can't pass this one up, so it's time for another PolitiFlub item, the Cliff's Notes version of the Grading PolitiFact category.

A PolitiFact item stemming from Florida's iteration of the GOP presidential debate focused on this (bold emphasis added) statement from Gov. Perry in response to fellow candidate Rick Santorum (bold emphasis carried over from the version published by PolitiFact):

WALLACE: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond, sir.

PERRY: I've got one question for him.

Have you ever even been to the border with Mexico?

SANTORUM: Yes.

PERRY: I'm surprised if you have, but you weren't paying attention, because the idea that you --

SANTORUM: Well, the answer is, yes, I have.

PERRY: -- are going to build a wall, a fence for 1,200 miles, and then go 800 miles more to Tijuana, does not make sense. You put the boots on the ground.

We know how to make this work. You put the boots on the ground. You put the aviation assets --

SANTORUM: But it's not working, Governor.

PERRY: -- in the ground. No, it's not working because the federal government has not --

SANTORUM: But you said we know how it works. Is it working in Texas?

PERRY: The federal government has not engaged in this at all. When I'm the president of the United States, I'll promise you one thing --

SANTORUM: But you're saying you put the assets there. Has it worked in Texas?

PERRY: -- we will put the assets on the ground --

SANTORUM: You said you have.

PERRY: -- the boots on the ground --

BAIER: Senator Santorum, let him finish, please.

PERRY: -- the aviation assets on the ground, and we will stop illegal immigration, we will stop the drug cartels, and we will make America secure.

Hmm.  In what has the federal government not engaged?



PolitiFact:

Really? There aren't any federal boots on the Texas border?

Really?  PolitiFact seriously thinks Perry was saying the federal government hasn't put any agents along the Texas border?

If they're going to take it that literally then they might as well take Perry to be suggesting that we can secure the border by dropping boots from the sky to land along the southern border.  Boots as in shoes.

Basic charitable interpretation suggests that Perry was talking about something more than simply having agents on the border.  Even PolitiFact grants that it matters what the agents do while they're stationed there:

We're not checking whether federal investment has been effective — merely, as Perry said, whether the federal government has been "engaged."

This fact check item is a bad joke.  One cannot assume that Perry was denying the presence of federal agents on the border with his statement.  Perry's words carry a good deal of ambiguity stemming from his failure to specify what it is the boots ought to do while on the ground.  One can fault Perry for that, but it's simply ridiculous to leap to the assumption that he was denying the presence of federal agents.

The term "engaged" carries a connotation of focus.  As well, Perry may not have gotten around to describing the particular booted activity in which the federal government has failed to engage.  Moderator Chris Wallace terminated the exchange and Perry had only received permission for a 30 second response in the first place.

The PolitiFact item contains no hint that the PolitiFact team tried to obtain any clarification from Perry regarding his intent.  Therefore, the tag "journalists reporting badly" applies.

Sad.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio's alleged You're either with me or leave the country

This is another strange fact check from PolitiFact.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers:  writer, researcher
Amy Hollyfield:  editor

Analysis:

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.

(CNN)

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."

(The Palm Beach Post)

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.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Rick Scott and private sector Stimulus jobs

Rick Scott is the Republican candidate for Florida governor headed into the 2010 election.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers:  writer, researcher
Shirl Kennedy:  researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis:

What did Rick Scott say, exactly?


Find the full transcript in the Afters section.

Higher taxes kill jobs.  Regulations kill jobs.  ObamaCare is an unbelievable job killer.  It's going to be devastating for our state.  Um, I mean, that, by itself, uh, is going to make it very difficult, uh, for people in the business (?) in our state.  One--and the taxes--increase in taxes for that, uh, is going to be devastating for our state.  On top of that, what my background is I put my money up, I took the risk, I stood up for what I believed in, starting businesses.  And that's a whole different background than other people.  But, and, she clearly believes in higher taxes, she clearly believes in ObamaCare, she care--clearly believes in stimulus, and we know that the Stimulus has not created one private sector job.

Though this looks like a straightforward claim that the Stimulus bill produced no private sector jobs, campaign spokesman Joe Kildea approached it as though Scott's remark referred to something like net job creation in the private sector, in Florida particularly:

"It's a ridiculous assertion that the stimulus has created jobs," Kildea said. "That's exactly the reason Floridians are so upset with the direction of the economy. No matter what sort of intellectual gymnastics used by Obama liberals, the fact is that when the stimulus was first signed, Florida's unemployment rate was 9.2% and today it is 11.6% and the state lost a net of almost 200,000 jobs."

Of course, if Florida lost 250,000 public sector jobs during that time frame (admittedly doubtful), then it would still follow that private sector jobs had been created to the tune of about 50,000.  So Kildea's approach ends up looking like spin.  PolitiFact's immediate response to Kildea was appropriately skeptical:

So, because more jobs were lost overall than gained, that's the same as saying not one job has been created?

If Scott is charitably taken to say that Florida has not gained any new net private sector jobs as a result of the Stimulus, then his mode of expression was needlessly misleading.

Much of the PolitiFact story by Becky Bowers investigates whether private sector jobs exist and/or are paid through Stimulus funds.  The story treats Scott's claim as literal and responds to attempts by Scott's campaign to explain the statement.  But something goes almost entirely missing from Bowers' story, only arising thanks to Bowers' inclusion of a quotation of Sean Snaith:

Sean Snaith, a University Of Central Florida economist who has been critical of the effect of the stimulus, agrees that saying "the stimulus has not created one private sector job" is inaccurate.

"I think that's an exaggeration of the reality, which is that it didn't do very much for private sector hiring," he said. "But surprise, surprise, in politics there's hyperbole sometimes."

It's more than hyperbole to Billy Weston. Here’s his reaction to Scott’s statement:

"I disagree. I have to. Even though, you know, I'm a devout Republican, that's absolutely wrong," he said. "I'm living proof that this helped out, tremendously. I couldn't agree with that statement whatsoever. I know, due to this program, I have a job at Sancilio & Co. That's the reality of it."

Snaith identified an argument underlying Scott's literal statement, and that suggested argument fits very well the context of Scott's remarks.  Though Bower retains partial credit for including the quotation of Snaith, the rest of the story pays no attention to the underlying argument.

Snaith also called Scott's controversial claim "hyperbole."  PolitiFact countered that with the somewhat out-of-context quotation of Billy Weston.  Bower's frames Weston's statement with "It's more than hyperbole to Billy Weston."  The most charitable way to understand "more than hyperbole" is "not hyperbole."  Weston did not take Scott's statement as hyperbole at all.  And Weston's view is fair because while Scott's statement may incidentally function as exaggeration for emphasis it is doubtful that many listeners would take it that way.

Scott most likely used a spurious fact to drive his underlying argument.  If he meant it literally then he was wrong.  If he meant it as hyperbole then the attempt was too awkward and misleading to qualify for most listeners.  Either way, the underlying argument is the same.  To express it using Snaith's words, the Stimulus bill "didn't do very much for private sector hiring."

Though Bowers mentions the underlying argument through the quotation of Snaith, the underlying argument is simply dropped when reading the "Truth-O-Meter":

"His position on stimulus hasn't changed," Colby said. "If the argument is that the stimulus is the only way to create jobs, it's false."

But that isn’t Scott’s statement. In the face of Billy Weston and now 1,300 jobs at a company Scott partly owns, his campaign still hasn’t moved from its stance that "the stimulus has not created one private sector job."  He may disagree that the stimulus is the most effective use of funds, or argue as Snaith does that "it didn't do very much." But those aren’t the words he chose.

With thousands of Floridians employed because of stimulus-funded programs — not to mention jobs for a company in which Scott owns stock — we rate his statement Pants on Fire.

With the underlying argument gone AWOL, PolitiFact ends up grading only the literal truth of Scott's claim.  Scott earns considerable criticism for what is at best described as a poor attempt at hyperbole, but it is not fair to exclude all consideration of the underlying argument while grading the truth of his statement.

The grades:

Becky Bowers:  F
Shirl Kennedy:  B
John Bartosek:  F

Clearly Scott had an argument underlying his use of the "not created one private sector job" claim.  Bowers and Bartosek's grades reflect their aiming of the focus of the story to the near total exclusion of Scott's underlying argument.  Kennedy apparently provided research appropriate for that focus and presumably was not involved in framing the story.

Afters:

My full transcript of the video.

SPT/MH:
I wanted to ask you about, um, your proposed--you and Alex Sink pretty much agree that you got to create jobs.  Um, or that one of the priorities is to, is to have Florida get more jobs.  What do you see the differences between how you approach that and she approaches that?

RS:
Oh, I think it's clear.  I mean, um, she supports President Obama's agenda, uh, she, she supports the Stimulus, she supports ObamaCare, she supports eliminating--or not extending the Bush tax cuts, so it's clear.  I mean, there's a big difference.

SPT/MH:
OK, that's an economic philosophy I guess.  How about when it comes to--can you, I guess, expand on that--

RS:
Hold on for a second (inaudible).

SPT/MH:
As it relates to creating jobs.  I mean, give me more specifics so I can explain that to people.

RS:
Oh, I think it's very simple.

SPT/MH
OK.

RS:
Higher taxes kill jobs.  Regulations kill jobs.  ObamaCare is an unbelievable job killer.  It's going to be devastating for our state.  Um, I mean, that, by itself, uh, is going to make it very difficult, uh, for people in the business (?) in our state.  One--and the taxes--increase in taxes for that, uh, is going to be devastating for our state.  On top of that, what my background is I put my money up, I took the risk, I stood up for what I believed in, starting businesses.  And that's a whole different background than other people.  But, and, she clearly believes in higher taxes, she clearly believes in ObamaCare, she care--clearly believes in stimulus, and we know that the Stimulus has not created one private sector job.

I've observed the convention of capitalizing "Stimulus" where it seems to refer to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.