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.

PolitiFact and the unimportance of accuracy in fact checking

If you disagree with a ruling, we encourage you to e-mail the writer or editor with your comments about our ruling.
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

We strive to make our work completely accurate. When we think we make a mistake, we correct it if we feel like it and note it on the original item.
--The (annotated) Principles of PolitiFact

Is accuracy important in fact checking?

Most would say it is, I suspect.  My many criticisms of PolitiFact are peppered with the message that using the fact check label raises the necessary journalistic standard.

PolitiFact often seems strangely ambivalent about its standard of accuracy.  I occasionally send a message to the writer and/or editor of a PolitiFact story to point out problems.  Occasionally I get a warm reply.  Somewhat more often I get a defensive reply that does not address the issue.  And most commonly I receive no reply and the problem in the fact check goes unresolved.  Sometimes I post about my attempts to alert PolitiFact about its errors under the tag "Piquing PolitiFact."

And here's the latest example, in response to a PolitiFact story titled "Nancy Pelosi says 'everybody' will get more and pay less under the health care law":

Dear Jon Greenberg,
cc Angie Drobnic Holan

Perhaps my favorite thing about PolitiFact is the way it asks readers to point out problems with its stories while it proceeds to ignore the problems readers point out at an apparently very high rate.

But enough about me.  Let's talk about you.

You wrote:

PolitiFact has looked at Republican allegations that the law is bad because it will drive up premiums for most people and found those statements False.

Are you sure about that?  I found one example (rated "Pants on Fire," which I'd count as false to your benefit).  Perhaps you should include the citations in the sidebar if you're going to write such things.

You also wrote:

But in its study, the CBO number crunchers actually predict that a large number of people will want to buy better insurance. They would opt for a lower deductible, lower co-pays and a wider range of benefits. That personal choice would cause their total premiums to rise some 27 to 30 percent. For a policy covering just one person, the difference would be about $600 a year, before accounting for any of the subsidies the law provides; over half the people in the individual market would qualify for those subsidies.

The above obscures the meaning of the explanation you later quote from  Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation and runs largely counter to the explanation occurring in the CBO report (note the recurring term "requirement"):

The main elements of the legislation that would affect the amount of coverage purchased are the requirement that all new policies in the nongroup and small group markets cover at least a minimum specified set of benefits; the requirement that such policies have a certain minimum actuarial value; and the design of the federal subsidies, which would encourage many enrollees in the exchanges to join plans with an actuarial value above the required minimum. (The excise tax on high-premium plans would also affect the amount of coverage purchased; the impact of that tax is discussed in a separate section of this analysis.) Those provisions would have a much greater effect on premiums in the nongroup market than in the small group market, and they would have no measurable effect on premiums in the large group market.

Specifically, because of the greater actuarial value and broader scope of benefits that would be covered by new nongroup policies sold under the legislation, the average premium per person for those policies would be an estimated 27 percent to 30 percent higher than the average premium for nongroup policies under current law (with other factors held constant). The increase in actuarial value would push the average premium per person about 18 percent to 21 percent above its level under current law, before the increase in enrollees’ use of medical care resulting from lower cost sharing is considered; that induced increase, along with the greater scope of benefits, would account for the remainder of the overall difference.

The CBO counts two requirements and one personal choice.  You only mention personal choice and obscure the reason for it, that being people's well-understood tendency to spend more if they perceive that they're getting a good deal. The good deal comes primarily from subsidies.

Who cares?

You?  Angie Holan?

We'll see, won't we?

Cheers,
Bryan White

I sent the message on July 8.  Five full days later the Pelosi fact check continues to contain the same two apparent errors.

This type of result, in my experience, is typical of PolitiFact.


Correction 7/14/2012:  Supplied missing text just prior to the quoted email text.

Piquing PolitiFact: Ranting at PolitiFact New Jersey

Ever notice that PolitiFact finds it impossible to detect and expose various iterations of the Buffett Fallacy?

PolitiFact New Jersey stuck with the pattern while checking a claim by Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) that people making over $1 million/"these richest people in America" pay their taxes at the lowest rate in 80 years.

Take it away, me:

This fact check perpetuates PolitiFact's failure to fully report the story on income taxes.

Marginal tax rates certainly don't tell the whole story, as they kick in and apply only to income exceeding that taxed at the next lowest rate. Yet the story focuses primarily on the top marginal rate.

Then the story achieves a cockeyed sort of balance by talking about the effective tax rate--but only the effective tax rate for personal income taxes. The CBO estimated effective income tax rates a few years ago. For some reason PolitiFact is allergic to accurately reporting the results of that study.

Admittedly, it's very hard to find. One has to know how to use Google and how to type in "CBO" and "effective tax rates." Don't bother trying it unless your I.Q. is at least 160. You're bound to fail.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884/12-23-effectivetaxrates_letter.pdf

As anyone who can read a table can see, the CBO numbers for effective federal tax rates (which includes estimates for corporate taxation) do not support Rothman's claim. He's cherry-picking his data, in effect.

Explain to me why no PolitiFact franchise appears to have the ability to share this information with readers? PolitiFact is a disgrace.

NJ.com.

It's truly mind-boggling that not one (so far as I can tell) of PolitiFact's franchises from National to Rhode Island has reported on the CBO's study of effective tax rates to put the progressive nature of the tax system in context.

Piquing PolitiFact: Who knew? Preventive care doesn't save money! (Updated)

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.

PolitiFact, 2008 (bold emphasis added):

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.

It's a good thing for the health care overhaul that there are still other cost-saving measures like the CLASS Act and the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Piquing PolitiFact: No correction on lottery claim?

Does PolitiFact care if it misreports the truth?  It's hard to tell.  No, really.  It's hard to tell.

Last year PolitiFact published one of its "Pants on Fire" hit pieces on Newt Gingrich, focusing on two of his claims about the lack of restrictions on food stamp benefits.

Gingrich stated, in part, that millionaires may qualify for food stamps.  Here's how PolitiFact ruled:

Each of Gingrich’s claims about food stamps is so ridiculous -- especially for a self-styled policy wonk -- that we wondered whether he was really intending to be serious. (By publication time, we did not receive answers to several queries made to his press staff.) But the transcript makes it sound like he wasn’t joking, so we’ll assume he wasn’t. For being so ridiculously wrong in so many ways, we rate his statement Pants on Fire.

Update: After we published this item we heard back from USDA spokesman Aaron Lavallee. Lavallee said there was one case in which an unemployed Michigan man who won $2 million in the lottery was deemed eligible for food stamps by the state. He was later removed from the program. Given the isolated nature of the incident and the fact that he was removed from the program, our ruling remains Pants on Fire.

In the comments on PolitiFact's Facebook page I questioned whether the writer, Louis Jacobson, had confirmed any change in Michigan's policy.  Point being, if the policy isn't different then millionaires can qualify for food stamps and the rating is a sham.

As usual there was no perceptible attempt by PolitiFact to address the hole in the story.

Then last week a news report appeared about another Michigan lottery winner--albeit a winner of less than $1 million--who was receiving benefits through the food stamp program.  In other words, it appears that Michigan (not to mention other states) has not changed its policy and a millionaire with no income or a lottery winner may qualify for food stamp benefits.

As I love writing useless messages to PolitiFact writers and editors, I sent the following via email:

Dear Louis Jacobson,
cc Martha Hamilton,

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/amanda-clayton-michigan-lottery-winner-still-accepting-food-stamps-73487.html

I thought I had sent a message asking for confirmation that Michigan had altered its policy by the time the "Pants on Fire" rating was published for Mr. Gingrich late last year.  I apologize for apparently neglecting that duty, for it might have resulted in an earlier correction/completion of the record.

Of course you have the option of completely ignoring this story's impact on the Gingrich rating.  I doubt the vast majority of your readers will notice.

As is typical of the PolitiFact staff, I have received no response.  And the Gingrich story?  No change or update as I write.

How many millionaires will have to receive food stamp benefits before PolitiFact revises its rating of Gingrich and admits that millionaires can qualify?

One should have been enough to avoid the "Pants on Fire" rating, in truth.



Note:  An earlier version of this post included a paragraph that did not belong in this story.  I'll shortly publish the story that now (properly) includes that paragraph.

Piquing PolitiFact: Journalistic ethics

On the heels of a related post, what do we make of the ethics of journalists who know they have published stories that contain errors and end up suppressing or ignoring the errors?

PolitiFact published a story purporting to fact check whether shark attacks in Florida outnumbered cases of voter fraud.  I posted an evaluation of that fact check, showing that cases where a felon voted illegally should warrant consideration for any reasonable tally of voter fraud numbers.  That and other avenues for fraud made PolitiFact's estimate of voter fraud in Florida into nonsense and the "Truth-O-Meter" rating a joke.

On March 4 I sent the following email to the team responsible for the story:

Dear Katie Sanders,
cc Angie Drobnic Holan

It's mind-boggling that the number of cases pursued for potential prosecution by the Florida Department of State was selected as an appropriate metric for the degree of voter fraud in Florida.  One might as wisely use the number of parking tickets issued to accurately reflect the amount of illegal parking.

The PolitiFact story might have been used to help inform people of the difficulty of enforcing voter fraud.  Our system makes fraud dead easy, and referencing a 1998 report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement might have helped a journalist explain the issue in some detail.  The problem is catching people once a fraud is committed.  Only the most inept attempts result in apprehension of a suspect.

Sure, taking the ACLU spokesperson in the sense relevant to this claim makes it harder to measure the number of times fraud has occurred in Florida elections.  But of one thing you can be pretty certain:  Election fraud in Florida has taken place more often in Florida than documented attacks on human beings by sharks in Florida waters.  Indeed, it's likely we've had more fraud in Florida elections since the year 2000 than we've had shark attacks in the last 500 years.

No pressure.  I expect the usual non-response and failure to take action from PolitiFact. 

My apologies for the low expectations, Ms. Sanders.  This is, after all, the first time I've written to you.

Is the story changed?  No. Have I received any reply from either Sanders or Drobnic Holan?  No.

Were the low expectations justified?  I'd call that a big "yes," at least thus far.

The story is unambiguously flawed in a very significant way and apparently PolitiFact intends to do nothing about it.

I'll update as needed, if needed.

Piquing PolitiFact: Building a straw man with which to attack Mitt Romney?

A recent fact check of Mitt Romney has drawn criticism from two of the experts cited in the story, in addition to Politico and the Huffington Post (find summary and links at PolitiFact Bias).

I'm not doing many "Grading PolitiFact" posts because of some research projects involving PolitiFact, but I took time out to submit a fact check suggestion to PolitiFact:

Dear Truth-O-Meter, 

It is said PolitiFact rates those who make political claims. I ran across a political claim a moment ago that seems highly questionable and I'm wondering if you would please consider fact checking it. 

A political fact check operation presented Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as saying the following: 

The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947." 

The quoted snippets are accurate enough, but please check the "because." Romney in the immediate context talked of administration proposals to cut military spending. Isn't that the chief reason Romney is suggesting as the risk to U.S. military superiority? 

Thank you oh-so-much, Truth-O-Meter.

I suspect that PolitiFact will triple down on its rating of Romney (either that or turtle and wait for the furor to die down), but in the unlikely event the editors decide to retract, a fact check of their own item might serve as a partial antidote to the high-handedness that pervades PolitiFact's typical response to criticism lately.

Probing PolitiFact's mostly useless corrections policy (Updated x3)

More often than I mention it here, I send messages to PolitiFact staffers alerting them to problems in their stories.  Typically I receive no reply and nothing is done about content errors.  But they're pretty good about fixing spelling errors if I happen to mention one of those.

In relation to a PolitiFact story involving conservative pundit Laura Ingraham--one I reviewed very recently--I sent the following message:

Dear Misters Adair and Jacobson,

The story on Laura Ingraham published on May 16 contains a substantial hole and a likely error.

The hole comes from the story's failure to provide context or background material sufficient to judge the context of Ingraham's statement.  In other words, there is absolutely nothing in the quotation of Ingraham that would indicate she was talking about RomneyCare's popularity in Massachusetts.  As such the presentation of the story conflicts with PolitiFact's aim of providing readers the tools to determine whether to agree with the "Truth-O-Meter" rating or not.

The goal is to help readers judge for themselves whether they agree with the ruling.
--Bill Adair

If you at PolitiFact are serious about that goal, it is incumbent on you to provide sufficient context for the reader to judge whether or not you have taken the statement from Ingraham out of context.

If you cannot provide material from the original conversation that shows that the context is what you claimed, then you should strongly consider that you have made an error.  The "Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter" describes what you would do if an error occurred.

Sincerely,
Bryan White
http://subloviate.blogspot.com/

As always, any reply not accompanied by "off the record" or the like is subject to publication.  Thanks for you (sic) time.

I sent the message to editor Bill Adair as well as to writer/researcher Louis Jacobson, as per the recommendations in the "Principles" document.

Now we wait to see what happens.

Hat tip to Jeff Dyberg for correctly noting that "one" is supposed to have an "e" at the end.  Correction accomplished. 

Update: 

As of May 19, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. the Ingraham story had not changed and I have received no communications from either Adair or Jacobson in reply to my message.  Though, as in the past, the message appeared to generate visits from the St. Petersburg Times and from a frequent visitor in the Washington D.C. area (where Adair is based).  So much for the principles of PolitiFact?  Stay tuned.


Update 2:

As of May 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. the Ingraham story had not changed and I have received no communications from either Adair or Jacobson in reply to my message.  The story continues to lack any internal evidence that PolitiFact interpreted Ingraham's words according to the context in which she stated them.  This reinforces the impression that either PolitiFact cares little for its stated principle of helping readers determine the facts based on the evidence rather than via PolitiFact's decisions, or else PolitiFact cares more about the damage to its reputation as a result of admitting significant error.


Update 3:

An examination of the O'Reilly Factor transcript bears out my suspicion that it contained nothing to indicate Ingraham was talking about RomneyCare's popularity in Massachusetts.

Now we're left to wonder why Jacobson and Adair, knowing all along that the transcript contains nothing supporting their assumption, decline to issue a clarification or correction.

The difference is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean?

Though PolitiFact has determined that Social Security financing is definitely not a "Ponzi scheme," apparently the pay-as-you go retirement programs in southern Europe are Ponzi schemes:

(E)xperts warn of a looming demographic disaster in Southern Europe, which has among the lowest birth rates in the Western world. With pensioners living longer and young people entering the work force later — and paying less in taxes because their salaries are so low — it is only a matter of time before state coffers run dry.

“What we have is a Ponzi scheme,” said Laurence J. Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University and an expert in fiscal policy.
(New York Times)

I don't get it.  Gov. Rick Perry says that Social Security's pay-as-you-go system is a Ponzi scheme and receives a "False" rating from PolitiFact.  Then "expert in fiscal policy" Laurence J. Kotlikoff says the same thing of a parallel system in Europe and the New York Times treats him as though he's some sort of expert?

Bring on PolitiFact Massachusetts!

Piquing PolitiFact: "Nuclear option" isn't really accurate, is it?

In the wake of PolitiFact's English language power grab (see Lie of the Year), a suitable analogy occurred to me.  And I couldn't resist employing it at a discussion area (thread:  "Fact Check This!") at PolitiFact's FaceBook page:

Message received, partly ignored

For the "Piquing PolitiFact" category, I'm reproducing a message I sent to PolitiFacter Angie Drobnic Holan regarding the Howard Dean interview published at PolitiFact:

Dear Angie Drobnic Holan,

I've written a number of times to the effect that it would be nice if PolitiFact would publish its interview material in order to provide a more transparent background for the quotations used in its stories.  For that reason, I was pleased to see the interview with Howard Dean appear on PolitiFact's (Web) pages.

On the other hand, the Dean interview was just one interview.  Why publish that one selectively?  What reasons contributed to that decision, please?

Cheers,
Bryan White
http://subloviate.blogspot.com/



P.S. Dean is not a stupid man, so it can't be assumed for purposes of transcribing an oral interview that he does not know the difference between "you're" and "your" ("First of all, you don't play defense when your doing messaging, you play offense," for example).  But maybe Dean wrote out his comments, for all I know.

P.P.S.:  The PolitiFact story has at least one obvious and unambiguous error in it:

"The memo is about salesmanship, not substance. It doesn't address whether the lines are accurate."

Actually, the memo does address the accuracy of the lines, at least for the line in question:  "Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare (more) than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications.")

Luntz's mention of the "realistic" expectation of denied/delayed care is a judgment about the accuracy of the message Luntz is trying to help Republicans convey.

The wording used in the story creates the (false) impression that Luntz was unconcerned about whether the messaging conveyed an accurate message.  Quite ironic given the thrust of your story.

Of course it's possible to read the line charitably on your behalf and take it to mean that Luntz's emphasis in the memo wasn't the accuracy of the claims but rather the efficacy of the messaging.  On the other hand, I assume that you don't mind being held to the same standard to which you hold others. (pants on fire!  ;-)  )
(yellow highlights added)

Yes, there's a secret message at the end reproduced faithfully from the original.

But the point is that the Dean quotation has been altered since I sent the message:

"The Democrats are atrocious at messaging. They've gotten worse since I left, not better. It's just appalling. First of all, you don't play defense when you're doing messaging, you play offense. The Republicans have learned this well. We did a lot of great things when I was at the (Democratic National Committee) in terms of infrastructure but we never could get people to actually message better. You always play offense when you're messaging, and the Republicans do it and we don't. You don't defend (against a charge that it's) a government takeover, you just say, 'Well, that's ridiculous.'"

Is it certain that Drobnic edited the Dean interview in response to my missive?  No, of course not.  But it's fairly likely.

Almost needless to say, the careless language about Luntz remains intact as of this posting.

Piquing PolitiFact: Did Charlie Crist receive $7.4 million in public campaign funds?

Following up on the editorial faux pas noted in my previous post, I submitted the mistake as a "semi-pundit check" to the fact checkers at PolitiFact.

We shall see to what standard, if any, the organization cleaves.

I'm still half expecting PolitiFact to start moderating its FaceBook comment page to prevent harm to the brand.  That is, if they don't eliminate commentary entirely.

Incriminating self-disclosure

PolitiFact's year-end/New Year stories are providing me rich amusement.

After tipping their editorially opinionated hand by picking a set of biggest lies of the year for which readers might vote, the PolitiFact crew followed up with "Five Surprising 'True' ratings" (sic) (don't ask me what capitalization rules they're applying).

With our Lie of the Year, we focused on the biggest falsehoods of 2009. But we also want to highlight our findings at the other end of the Truth-O-Meter, the many items we determined were True. We're a skeptical bunch here at PolitiFact, so we chose five True ratings that surprised us.

If admitting what stories surprised the staff fails to provide a window into their ideological topography then perhaps nothing will.

What could possibly surprise PolitiFact's scientifically minded group of media professionals?

1.) Preventive care does not save the government money. (David Brooks, Aug. 14, in an interview on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer)

It's hard to imagine why that would be surprising, once one gets past the very surface fact that for individual cases a disease avoided saves the money used to treat that disease.  Preventive care costs time and money, and where the disease is not present most types of preventive care costs end up being a total waste of money, in medical terms.

It's a common view among universal coverage advocates that preventive care saves money, of course.  More than a coincidence?

2.) To give the economic stimulus plan some perspective, "if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion." (Mitch McConnell, Feb. 1, in appearance on CBS' Face the Nation)

The math on this is fairly simple.  Even taking the prevalence of mathematically-challenged journalists into account, my first thought was that it was hard for PolitiFact to believe simply because McConnell's statement implied that Jesus was a real person.

3.) "Switzerland and the Netherlands . . . cover all their citizens using private insurers, and they do so for much less cost." (Matt Miller, Sept. 8, in a Washington Post op-ed)

It's amazing how many liberals think that universal coverage is the same thing as single-payer coverage.  Did the PolitiFact staff really know so little about the variety of methods used to achieve universal coverage in Europe?  Or were they simply surprised that private insurance over there could operate "for much less cost"?  The latter would seem to indicate a dim view of the efficiencies of capitalism.

4.) "In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence." (Michelle Obama, Sept. 18, in a speech)

That one seems easy to understand in one sense.  If we're talking about insurance coverage (I haven't peeked), certain conditions could establish a case where the policyholder deliberately forces a claim on the insurer.  Somewhat parallel to deliberately wrecking a car and expecting the insurance company to give you a new one.

After peeking, the issue is more clear.  And PolitiFact's surprise is less surprising from the liberal point of view.

Insurance companies in some states may legally refuse to issue policies to those with a history of domestic violence victimhood.   In a free market, that makes sense.  Insurance companies should be expected to be able to accept customers based on risk.  People from abusive relationships tend to stay in abusive relationships.  The notion that an insurance company should be forced by law to ignore risk is, I think, characteristically liberal.  But I do think that surprise is warranted regarding the degree to which some states have refrained from market interference--even for a conservative.

5.) Obama has admitted a cap-and-trade plan would cause electricity bills to "skyrocket." (Sarah Palin, Nov. 17, in her book Going Rogue)

I just do not see the warrant for surprise*.  We get our energy primarily from fossil fuels of the type that cap-and-trade would tax.  The other types of energy cost more, at least for the foreseeable future.  It's only pollyanna leftists who do not see the implications of cap-and-trade, I thought.

Three out of these five were prefigured in the conservative portion of the blogosphere.  In other words, keeping abreast of conservative blogs might well have kept most of these from surprising left-leaning reporters.

PolitiFact has obligingly provided some of the best evidence to date of a clear liberal bias.


The matter of the asterisk

* My recollection suggested that the "skyrocket" fact check predated the "Going Rogue" set of fact-checks.  PolitiFact checked Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) back during the summer on his quotation of Obama to the effect that energy bills would "necessarily skyrocket."

If PolitiFact was surprised, the surprise should have come near the point where Pence was ruled "True" on his "skyrocket" claim rather than on account of the subsequent and nearly identical claim from Sarah Palin.


Update:

I've presented my observation to PolitiFact at the PolitiFact FaceBook page.

(click to enlarge)

Added "Piquing PolitiFact" tag.

Piquing PolitiFact: Corrections and $timulu$

I pointed out some time ago that PolitiFact had reported a figure for the Obama stimulus package that was off by a factor of a billion. I subsequently pointed out the error at PolitiFact's FaceBook page.

clipped from www.facebook.com

Bryan White

Rep. Young offered a fair paraphrase of Obama. The PolitiFact writer seems to be the one who provided the quotation marks. The writer also mischaracterized the topic of Obama's comments. It wasn't the economy. It was the deficit, and Obama as much as admitted responsibility for almost a third of it. And one last (minor) thing: a $787 stimulus package? This was a poor excuse for journalism.

November 12 at 4:57am · Delete · Report

Granted, I pointed out the error in what may be regarded as a subtle way.

After that, on occasion I would swing by the PolitiFact entry containing the error. Nothing changed.

Noting that Angie Drobnic Holan (who appears to wholly or mostly handle PolitiFact comments at Facebook) solicits e-mail pointing out errors, I offered an alternative suggestion. Why not dedicate a thread on the "Discussions" page to errors?

clipped from www.facebook.com

Post #1

You wroteon November 20, 2009 at 11:22am

PolitiFact encourages readers to point out errors by sending e-mail.
But why not use public posting for the same function? How hard would it be to dedicate a thread to alleged inaccuracies?

As a bonus, an open system enhances accountability and public awareness.

Would PolitiFact seriously not bother to change the amount of the stimulus bill from $787 to $787 billion simply because nobody wants to go through the trouble of e-mailing the complaint?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/11/cw-bill-young/us-rep-claims-obama-told-republicans-shut-and-go-/

I never received any reply to my message, but today I noticed that PolitiFact finally fixed the error. But apparently without any correction notice. Protect the brand! Error? We made no error.

Ever the helpful sort, I added another message to the thread:

Hey, thanks for fixing the stimulus spending number that had been off by a factor of a billion!

But now I'm curious. Did PolitiFact hold off until the error was pointed out via e-mail or act on the basis of commentary at the FaceBook page? And the page in question carries no notice that it has been updated or corrected for error. Is that common practice at the Times?

Piquing PolitiFact: How many times was waterboarding used?

Fresh from criticizing PolitiFact for flubbing its analysis attached to a statement from former vice president Dick Cheney, I e-mailed the Truth-O-Meter at PolitiFact asking for a resolution of the discrepancy between number of sessions reported in the so-called "torture memos" and the reports from the terrorists as given to the Red Cross.

Dear Truth-O-Meter,

I have encountered numerous news reports to the effect that Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded 83 and 183 times, respectively.

But testimony from both men collected by the Red Cross appears to directly contradict that, as Zubaydah told of 10 waterboarding sessions and KSM said that he experienced 5 sessions.
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
(see page 10)

How is this discrepancy explained?

Cheers,
Bryan

If my inquiry is not ignored (I expect it to be ignored), then PolitiFact will be set up to either publish a piece contradicting one of its earlier stories or forced into correcting the same earlier story.

I expect PolitiFact will do nothing to correct the misinformation it reinforces in its readership, but I look forward to seeing my expectation dashed.

Piquing PolitiFact: the Leahy/Kyl update

In my original post in the new "Piquing PolitiFact" series, I shared an e-mail message I sent to PolitiFact asking for a fact check of a statement by Sen. Pat Leahy (D, NY). I have now received a brief and somewhat amusing reply. It's show and tell time.

First, a reprint of the original message:

Dear Truth-O-Meter,

I recently read a press report that included an unusual statement from Sen. Patrick Leahy concerning an amendment offered by Sen. John Kyl. Kyl's amendment would have prevented certain funds from being used to bring Palestinian refugees to the United States, or at least so it appeared. But Leahy's interpretation seemed to view the amendment as far more expansive:

Frankly, it is unnecessary and for the United States, a Nation of immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for. We don’t resettle anybody from Gaza, nor do we resettle anybody from Gaza who is living in the U.N. refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. The amendment is a solution looking for a problem. If a Palestinian from Gaza gets to a place like Italy, or somewhere in Europe, the amendment would prevent the State Department from even considering that person for resettlement to the United States. We would have to tell them 'Sorry, you can’t come in, because you are from a place that has terrorists.'

True or false? Or somewhere in between?

Cheers,
Bryan

And the reply:

Check out our story on this one here:http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/08/chain-email/money-humanitarian-aid-not-emmigration-assistance/

--
Bill Adair
Washington Bureau Chief
St. Petersburg Times and PolitiFact.com

They read their mail, at least--in a manner of speaking. The link provided by Adair leads back to the "press report" that I talked about in my original e-mail. Perhaps Adair thought that the statement is verified if it is merely quoted in a PolitiFact piece. Or, more likely, he skimmed my message to the point of thinking I was interested in the nature of the Kyl amendment rather than about Leahy's characterization of it.

I suppose it's too early to get my hopes up about seeing an evaluation of Leahy's remark at PolitiFact. But I have yet to entirely give up hope. I sent Adair a reply of my own:

Dear Mr. Adair,

Coincidentally, that is the media source I was talking about in my original e-mail. The story to which you referred me does not fact check the Leahy statement. It simply presents the statement as though it very well might be true.

But it seems worth fact checking to me. Do you not agree?

Cheers,
Bryan

Piquing PolitiFact: Leahy right about Kyl's amendment?

Maybe it's just me, but the so-called fact checking operation over at PolitiFact has seemed increasingly slanted--as though the reporting there follows the lead of liberal blogs, or perhaps JournoList.

In an effort to sustain some pressure toward fairness, I'll be sending the occasional missive to PolitiFact suggesting stories they might be interested in investigating. And I will share each of those publicly so the public can, in turn, judge the news judgment of Bill Adair and company.

On with it:

Dear Truth-O-Meter,

I recently read a press report that included an unusual statement from Sen. Patrick Leahy concerning an amendment offered by Sen. John Kyl. Kyl's amendment would have prevented certain funds from being used to bring Palestinian refugees to the United States, or at least so it appeared. But Leahy's interpretation seemed to view the amendment as far more expansive:

Frankly, it is unnecessary and for the United States, a Nation of immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for. We don’t resettle anybody from Gaza, nor do we resettle anybody from Gaza who is living in the U.N. refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. The amendment is a solution looking for a problem. If a Palestinian from Gaza gets to a place like Italy, or somewhere in Europe, the amendment would prevent the State Department from even considering that person for resettlement to the United States. We would have to tell them 'Sorry, you can’t come in, because you are from a place that has terrorists.'

True or false? Or somewhere in between?

Cheers,
Bryan

The statement from Leahy, of course, was reproduced in a recent PolitiFact item that ended up using a claim already debunked by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org to bludgeon Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. Looked fine to them at the time, I guess. Go figure.