PolitiFact has earned its status as the least-dependable of the stable of left-leaning fact check organizations. PolitiFact Wisconsin gives us one more sparkling example supporting that judgment with a fact check of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan.
Ryan said President Obama broke a campaign promise to keep the Janesville (Wisc.) plant open. PolitiFact Wisconsin detected no such promise from Mr. Obama.
Here's what then-candidate Obama said in February 2008 (bold emphasis added) during a speech in Janesville:
This can be America’s future. I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.
Importantly, Obama opened his speech with references to the plant. He then sketched his vision of America before mentioning how the Janesville plant could stay open if the government provides support. In that context, Obama pledged to provide that support. Does Mr. Obama use the specific term "promise" in his statement? No, certainly not. Does he guarantee the plant will remain open? Again, no. However, there is little doubt that every person in Janesville listening to his speech took it as a pledge from the president to work to enact policies to keep the plant open. Mr. Obama did, in fact, pledge to do just that.
PolitiFact Wisconsin located no such pledge.
But it gets worse. Much worse. PolitiFact builds its conclusion primarily on its claim that the Janesville plant closed before Mr. Obama took office (bold emphasis added):
Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office.
So, when is the plant closed? When it closes for the last time? When it produces its last GM vehicle? When the company announces its permanent closure on a particular date?
When President Bush left office, he had provided Chrysler and GM loans to keep them going until the automakers could present restructuring plans to the Obama administration in April.
GM announced the final closing of the Janesville plant in April of 2008, and the final Chevy Tahoe came off the line in December 2008, before Obama took office as president. On the other hand, the plant stayed open so that GM could build trucks for Isuzu:
The company stopped building SUVs at the plant just before Christmas.
That decision left about 1,200 workers unemployed.At the time GM said a crew would remain to complete an order for Isuzu.
But by June of 2009, while the Obama administration was still negotiating GM's fate and after completing the work for Isuzu, Janesville continued to maintain hope that its plant might reopen:
JANESVILLE (WKOW) -- There is a lot of optimism in Janesville today, after receiving word GM could reopen one of its idle plants to produce new fuel efficient cars, according to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce development.
If the GM restructuring deal brokered by the Obama administration resulted in continued production at GM's plant in Janesville, is there any doubt at all that Obama would receive credit for delivering on a promise? Especially if the work involved hybrid vehicles? The opportunity was there for the taking.
Why is so much of this information missing from a fact check?
Correction 8/31/2012: Original version had wrong date for Obama's Janesville speech on first reference: "Here's what President-elect Obama said in December 2008 (bold emphasis added) during a speech in Janesville:" That sentence has been made accurate.
A new ad from President Barack Obama’s campaign continues the drumbeat that Mitt Romney is a privileged rich guy who isn't paying his fair share of taxes.
"You work hard, stretch every penny," a narrator says. "But chances are, you pay a higher tax rate than him: Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010, but paid only 14 percent in taxes — probably less than you."
Huh. The Obama campaign didn't specify federal income taxes. No worries. Obama isn't Michele Bachmann, so PolitiFact can overlook the campaign's oversight.
Bachmann would have been right if she’d said, "the top 1 percent of income earners pay about 40 percent of all income taxes into the federal government." But she didn’t say that -- and even if she had, her decision to focus on income taxes, rather than looking at the whole federal tax picture, would have presented the numbers in such a way that wealthier Americans would look more heavily taxed than they are.
So we want "the whole federal tax picture"? Not so. PolitiFact wants the tax picture minus the effects of corporate and excise taxes. The thread is consistent and continues through today.
PolitiFact:
If you just look at income taxes, Obama is incorrect.
Bummer. But since Obama didn't specify "(federal) income taxes" PolitiFact can consider payroll taxes while continuing to ignore corporate and excise taxes. Or something like that.
PolitiFact:
So what happens when you add payroll taxes to income taxes? Obama's ad is accurate. Here's the breakdown when you include income taxes and both sides of the payroll tax (the parts paid for by employee and employer):
Once again, we can’t know exactly what percentage of Americans paid a higher effective tax rate than Romney's 14 percent, but the top two ranges, plus a significant share of the middle group, most likely did. So probably more than half exceeded Romney’s rate, making the Obama ad accurate.
Yippee! Obama's ad is accurate! Average out the true and the false, give the president a "Half True" and nobody really needs to know about that messy corporate and excise tax stuff.
Speaking of that messy corporate and excise tax stuff:
(click image for enlarged view)
The chart comes directly from the CBO report mentioned up above. There are two important things to note. First, excise taxes fall more heavily on those in the lower income quintiles. That's a minor point. Second, the burden of corporate taxes falls heavily on those with higher incomes. And the higher you go with income, the higher the corporate tax burden. That likely means that persons like Romney pay higher portions of the corporate tax burden as a percentage of their federal taxes.
Using "the whole federal tax picture" that PolitiFact once cited as its ideal standard, the middle quintile pays less than half the average federal tax burden of a person in the top 1 percent in 2006 (14.2 percent compared to 31.2 percent). That means that it is very probably false that most people pay less in federal taxes than Romney.
Luckily for the president, PolitiFact can make it look otherwise by cherry picking.
Just a little review of what PolitiFact wrote while rating Bachmann "False":
[Bachmann's] decision to focus on income taxes, rather than looking at the whole federal tax picture, would have presented the numbers in such a way that wealthier Americans would look more heavily taxed than they are.
PolitiFact's hypocrisy is pretty overwhelming, isn't it?
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
Readers should already find themselves wondering whether "FCAT tests" represents the time spent taking the test itself or the time spent preparing for the test. PolitiFact uses ambiguous wording. Yet why would we expect the test itself to take more than 1 percent of a year's instructional time?
Reflecting a backlash against testing, more than a dozen individual school boards in the state, including Broward and Palm Beach, have passed a resolution against the FCAT. The Florida School Boards Association passed its own version of a resolution criticizing the FCAT in June.
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."
If PolitiFact follows AP style for quotations, the above represents a breach of style guidelines. Here's how the quotation would look according to AP style:
"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."
PolitiFact:
There are a few interesting claims in Robinson’s statement, but the one that caught our eye was that tiny figure: The FCAT accounts for "less than 1 percent of instructional time." Heck, we wonder if lunch or recess could add up to more than 1 percent. So we decided to research whether Robinson’s 1 percent claim was correct.
PolitiFact reports that Robinson's office backed up his claim with numbers showing that the amount of time spent taking the test amounts to .26 to .90 of the state-mandated minimum of 900 hours of instructional time.
So Robinson's claim was true? PolitiFact doesn't see it that way:
But Robinson used the phrase "instructional time" in his claim, which could fairly be interpreted to mean classroom time spent preparing for the test.
Yes, Robinson used the phrase "instructional time" in his claim, but it isn't fair to interpret it to mean classroom time spent preparing for the test.
"Instructional time" has a particular meaning in education. It means the time students spending doing learning activities under a teacher's direction.
Robinson addressed three specific points with his press release. The FCAT program is allegedly too expensive, dominates the curriculum and hinders student success.
Robinson addresses the first point by framing FCAT expense in terms of its percentage of state and local investment in the schools. He deals with the second point in the next paragraph:
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.
PolitiFact ignores this context and tries to make it look like Robinson is saying that the schools spend very little time trying to prepare students for the FCAT. The above paragraph from Robinson unequivocally puts the lie to the journalists' frame. He addressed the issue by saying that the test measures things that students ought to spend much of their time learning.
Obviously, then, Robinson was not trying to say that students spend less than 1 percent of their instructional time preparing for the FCAT. That would argue against his preceding paragraph.
PolitiFact just ignored the context.
In fact, Robinson's 1 percent figure is more accurate the more time students spend preparing for the FCAT, if one insists on suggesting that he used "instructional time" to refer to test preparation. For review (bold emphasis added): "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." If students spend as little as half of their instructional time on the FCAT then the estimate for time spent on the assessments rises to a range between .52 and 1.8 percent--still in the neighborhood of 1 percent if we willfully ignore Robinson's clear explanation.
PolitiFact appears to conflate the "assessments" with the "instructional time" somehow. As one is used as a percentage of the other, that path leads to a spectacularly failed fact check.
PolitiFact devotes considerable space to quotations complaining about the FCAT, but none of it addresses Robinson's claim. We can skip on to the wondrous conclusion consisting of four short paragraphs plus a "False" rating.
One:
Robinson said that the FCAT tests "account for less than 1 percent of the instructional time provided during the year." This was a prepared statement, based on research done by his staff, in response to FCAT critics who say that schools devote too much time to the tests.
Right, but Robinson addressed the critics' point in his preceding paragraph.
Two:
Readers could assume that by "instructional time" Robinson was including regular lesson time in the classroom preparing for the FCAT. He wasn’t. His office says that referred to the number of minutes taking the test out of the total minutes of instruction per year. But he didn’t provide that explanation in his statement.
Robinson may have assumed that those reading his statement have the ability to read. PolitiFact doesn't explain why people would be seriously misled if they believed taking the FCAT test constituted less than 1 percent of the preparation time. The smaller the percentage the greater the preparation time by proportion.
It is doubtful PolitiFact could make a coherent case that Robinson was minimizing the preparation time for the test, assuming it would even make the attempt.
Three:
In reality, there is no clear way to quantify how much time teachers spend preparing students for the test. Some teachers say they spend practically all their time on the FCAT.
If all of the teachers spend all of their time on the FCAT then Robinson's statement is perfectly accurate and students spend less than 1 percent of their instructional time taking the assessment. There's nothing here to use against Robinson's accuracy or veracity.
Four:
Robinson’s goal was to deflect criticism that too much time is spent "teaching to the test." He is suggesting that the FCAT eats up only a smidgen of a school year. But for students, parents and teachers who spend months preparing for those tests, Robinson’s words are misleading.
PolitiFact completely missed Robinson's point by ignoring the context. The fact check doesn't make a lick of sense. Robinson's words are misleading if one ignores context, grammar, syntax and logic.
The grades:
Amy Sherman: F
Angie Drobnic Holan: F
This case perhaps makes up PolitiFact's penultimate train-wreck to date. PolitiFact owes Robinson an apology and a front page correction notice.
In this article, PolitiFact agreed that evidence provided to them by the Department of Education verified the accuracy of my statement when taken in this context. However, PolitiFact claims my statement was made to deflect criticism that too much time is spent “teaching to the test.” If this were true, I would agree with PolitiFact’s conclusion. However, since PolitiFact misrepresents the context of my statement, I rate their finding as False.
Update 2, August 3, 2012:
A Band-Aid for the severed head: PolitiFact modifies the quotation with the insertion of two ellipses--and no correction notice (at least as of now).
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 correction is not quite compliant with AP style by my reading, as the AP Stylebook's example shows a line of space between the sentences prior to the insertion of the ellipse when one pulls sentences from different paragraphs..
That's a minor point, of course. The story remains incoherent. The head is still severed and the body is bleeding out through the neck.
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
Sabrina Eaton: writer, researcher
Robert Higgs: editor
Analysis:
As one might anticipate from the epigraph, the context serves as the key to this fact check.
Most (or at least many) people know of "Joe the Plumber," Joe Wurzelbacher, a Toledo man vaulted to modest fame after an unscripted and candid conversation in 2008 with a campaigning Barack Obama.
Since that initial boost to notoriety, Wurzelbacher entered into a congressional race as the Republican candidate in a redrawn Ohio district against veteran of Congress Marcy Kaptur. Kaptur squeezed out fellow Democrat and congressional veteran Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary.
The fact check concerns Wurzelbacher's status as a plumber, the Kaptur campaign's attempts to exploit that status as a campaign issue and Wurzelbacher's response to Kaptur's tactics. PolitiFact fact checks the latter, and the former two constitute the critical context.
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
This story by PolitiFact Florida manifests that special type of journalistic incompetence that could easily double as deliberate campaign activity on behalf of the Democratic Party's senatorial candidate, Bill Nelson.
PolitiFact does provide the context of the ad, which gives the lie, directly or indirectly, to pretty much the entire PolitiFact analysis:
U.S. Chamber: "Obamacare will be a nightmare for Florida seniors. Did Bill Nelson consider the consequences when he cast a deciding vote for Obamacare?"
Nelson: "This legislation is gonna let folks that are happy with their insurance keep it …"
U.S. Chamber: "Wrong. 20 million people could lose their current coverage."
Nelson: "... including our senior citizens who are on Medicare."
U.S. Chamber: "But Senator, seniors will see $500 billion in Medicare cuts to fund Obamacare. Call Bill Nelson. Tell him to support the repeal of Obamacare."
PolitiFact focuses on a would-be broader context where the ad supposedly implies that 20 million Medicare beneficiaries will* lose their current insurance:
Here, we’re checking whether "20 million people could lose their current coverage," and whether those people are older Americans on Medicare as the ad strongly suggests.
Don't hold your breath waiting for PolitiFact to substantiate its claim that the ad "strongly suggests" that 20 million Medicare beneficiaries will lose their current coverage. It never happens. Instead, we get a series of statements that essentially repeat the charge without any supporting evidence: "The ad makes it sound like 20 million seniors will be losing coverage," "The ad blurs these distinctions in a way that’s highly misleading," "Yet it seems like that’s the reasonable interpretation of the ad" and "The ad from the U.S. Chamber makes it sound like 20 million older Americans will lose coverage under the health care law."
Apparently since the ad opens with the claim that "Obamacare will be a nightmare for Florida seniors," PolitiFact assumes that some portion of the ad must support that statement. But that simply isn't the case. The ad follows up by showing Nelson making false statements about the health plan he supported and the ad questions whether Nelson considered the consequences of his vote. That's fair game in politics.
Is the jump from the claim that ObamaCare is disastrous for Florida seniors to Nelson's ill-stated advocacy a proper justification for a "Pants on Fire" rating? PolitiFact wants us to think so, and uses techniques that make the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad look completely aboveboard by comparison.
Shenanigan A:
We read (CBO)the report, which analyzes the health care law of 2010, also known as the Affordable Care Act. We quickly realized the ad was mixing apples and oranges.
On the contrary, rather than mixing apples and oranges the ad uses the higher boundary of an estimate of those who will lose existing employer-provided coverage to represent the number of citizens overall who will lose their existing coverage. Logically, the higher boundary on the loss of existing coverage for all Americans is higher than that for just those in the employer-provided market. The claim that the ad mixes apples and oranges stands if PolitiFact demonstrates that the ad is saying that 20 million Medicare beneficiaries will lose their existing coverage. PolitiFact never undertakes that demonstration.
Shenanigan B:
Even if the ad had provided proper context of employer-provided insurance, it’s still not exactly the case that 20 million people will lose coverage under the health insurance law.
The ad said "could lose," not "will lose."
Shenanigan C:
Second, some portion of that (20 million) number are people voluntarily switching to other, better coverage -- not being forced out of coverage against their will.
Ah, the old "conjecture as evidence" ploy. "Are" suggests a fact in evidence. But the consequences of the law foretold in the CBO report are not yet in evidence. As chronicled in an earlier "Grading PolitiFact" entry, PolitiFact invented its evidence on this point. Is it possible that a person will voluntarily leave employer-provided coverage for coverage under an exchange? Sure, barely. But subsidized exchange coverage under the health care reform act is not available to those forsaking employer-offered coverage. Those doing so pay for their insurance out of their own pockets, and in addressing that point the CBO notes that consumers in the insurance market strongly tend to choose the less expensive option. PolitiFact has an excellent record of ignoring that detail from the report.
Shenanigan D (bold emphasis added):
We contacted the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit group that works with Medicare beneficiaries to educate them on the program and help them get access to care. We asked executive director Judith Stein if there was any scenario in which seniors would lose coverage under the new health care law.
"If they’re stating that 20 million people would lose Medicare because of the Affordable Care Act, that is simply not true. In fact, the health care law strengthens Medicare coverage," Stein said.
Note the leading nature of the question posed to Stein. The question uses as its premise the supposition that the ad says seniors will lose insurance coverage, not that seniors will lose their current plan. And for many seniors, the current plan is a Medicare Advantage plan.
The new provisions will generally reduce MA rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages. We estimate that in 2017, when the MA provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law).
As with the decreased enrollment in employer-provided insurance, the abandonment of existing Medicare Advantage insurance plans will occur primarily because of price rationing.
PolitiFact would leave its readers none the wiser.
Now to evaluate the ad according to an alternative reasonable interpretation.
The ad doesn't support its claim that the health care reform bill will prove disastrous for Florida seniors. Instead, it makes the case that Bill Nelson's advocacy for the reform bill was misplaced. That is the meaning of the ad's question "Did Bill Nelson consider the consequences when he cast a deciding vote for Obamacare?"
To support the idea that Nelson's perception of the consequences was awry, the ad shows him making the debunked claim that those who like their current insurance plan will be able to keep that plan. Nelson expands on that claim by specifically mentioning Medicare. The response in the ad points to a Medicare "cut" that reallocates the funding toward ObamaCare. A portion of that reduction to projected Medicare spending comes from the reduced Medicare Advantage rebates mentioned above by Medicare's chief actuary.
PolitiFact crashes into this problem again and again. Fair interpretation requires charitable interpretation of every statement. It is flatly improper for fact checkers to arbitrarily prefer one "reasonable" interpretation over another. The claim that 20 million may lose existing insurance--the claim PolitiFact chose to check--is flatly true by the CBO report because the total number of Americans who may lose existing coverage cannot be less than the number of Americans who may lose employer-based coverage. PolitiFact's suggestion that the ad implies that the full 20 million come from Medicare carries the appearance of mendacity.
The grades:
Angie Drobnic Holan: F
Aaron Sharockman: F
I'm not offering grades for those who merely contributed research.
The two listed above are journalists reporting badly.
*Update/Clarification 5/18/2012: I wrote early in the post that PolitiFact says "the ad supposedly implies that 20 million Medicare beneficiaries will lose their current insurance." That statement is accurate in the context of the the entire fact check but is not fully supported by the quotation immediately following. I considered changing it but decided on an explanatory note instead.
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
Angie Drobnic Holan: writer, researcher
Martha M. Hamilton: editor
Analysis:
PolitiFact, we are told, pays close attention to the specific wording of political claims.
We'll see. Already in the clipped image above one can note semantic drifts between "refuse" and "won't" along with "willing to close" and "want to repeal."
To be sure, the paraphrases can work if one keeps context carefully in mind. Let's fix the context carefully in mind:
Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.
We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.
President Obama is saying that the Ryan budget "spends" $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates, and the way the lower tax rates will "supposedly be paid for" is via closing tax loopholes and eliminating deductions to the tune of $4.6 trillion.
Obama is engaging in doublespeak. If the budget pays for the $4.6 trillion by increasing taxes by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions then it isn't "spending" $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates. There are honest and forthright ways to express skepticism that the Ryan proposal remains neutral on income tax revenue. Obama did not use one of them.
PolitiFact for its part glosses over the doublespeak to focus on the claim that "Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close."
In principle, it’s certainly possible to eliminate exemptions and lower
tax rates while keeping tax revenues the same. It’s usually called
"broadening the base", and it was part of the 2010 Simpson Bowles budget
commission that Obama has praised, though he’s stopped short of
endorsing the bipartisan commission’s recommendations.
The point Obama made, though, was that the House Republicans haven’t
said which exemptions they would end. Some of the largest exemptions are
the most popular, such as tax exemptions on employer-provided health
insurance, home mortgage interest and charitable donations, as well as
special lower tax rates for income from investments, such as capital
gains and dividends.
Note the portion receiving bold emphasis. Once again, PolitiFact has applied semantic distortion. Obama did not simply say that House Republicans haven't said which exemptions they would end. He said they refused to name so much as one exemption they were even willing to cut.
We're supposed to believe that PolitiFact pays close attention to the wording of a claim.
PolitiFact's semantic presto chango in this case potentially makes the difference between "True" and "False."
The new Ryan budget does not list any single example of a tax loophole it would close ("True"). On the other hand, the budget's plan to close tax loopholes logically implies that it would close no less than one tax loophole. Amplifying that point, one could say of the Ryan budget that it does not name a single loophole it would leave intact.
PolitiFact:
Committee staff pointed us to this statement on the House Budget Committee website:
"This budget calls for lowering tax rates and broadening the tax base.
All corners of the tax code should be on the table. The House Ways and
Means Committee, led by Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan, has held dozens
of hearings over the past year examining how best to simplify the tax
code while maximizing economic growth."
That doesn't entirely let House Republicans off the hook, though.
If it lets Republicans off the hook at all in any way then why does PolitiFact give Obama a "True" rating?
Alternatively, do Republicans refuse to name a single tax loophole they're willing to cut?
PolitiFact quoted part of a Fox News Sunday interview of Ryan. Interviewer Chris Wallace asked Ryan for specifics. Ryan deferred to the Ways and Means Committee, but Wallace pressed further:
PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):
Wallace: "All right. I understand, this is not your committee, it's the
Ways and Means Committee. Can you tell me any (tax exemptions) that
you're willing to say, do away with it?"
Ryan: "What I would say on doing away with it, is who would we do away
with it for. And what we're saying is the people who disproportionately
use those, it's the top two tax rate payers use almost of those tax
expenditures. We would limit these things to those higher income
earners."
Wallace: "Even things like the deduction for health insurance and pensions and home mortgage?"
Ryan: "Yes, right. Instead of giving these write-offs to the people in
the top tax bracket, take those tax shelters away. For every dollar
that's parked in the tax shelter is taxed at zero. Take away the tax
shelter, subject all of their income to taxation, you get more revenue,
and we can lower everybody's tax rate in return. So, we're saying let's
limit these kinds of deductions to the higher-income earners so that
everybody can enjoy lower, flatter tax rates in return.
Ryan affirmed that the plan targets specific items like the deduction for health insurance and pensions along with the home mortgage deduction.
PolitiFact apparently doesn't interpret Ryan as effectively naming three separate loopholes or tax shelters. The fact check offers no additional comment on Ryan's response and moves straight to its conclusion:
Obama said, "Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax
loophole they are willing to close." House Republicans have said they
want to handle tax changes through the Ways and Means Committee, and the
plan’s top proponent, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, said he would limit
deductions and exemptions for people who report higher incomes.
But without more details on eliminating exemptions, it’s impossible to
know if the tax plan will substantially reduce tax revenues or not. It’s
also not possible to know what all the implications are for taxpayers.
We rate Obama’s statement True.
PolitiFact's conclusion ignores the facts and focuses on an irrelevancy.
The fact is that the Ryan plan intentionally allows the House Ways and Means Committee to exercise its discretion in achieving the budgetary goals. PolitiFact says it doesn't get Republicans off the hook entirely, apparently meaning it doesn't get them off the hook at all. Ryan affirms three specific loopholes and deductions he's willing to see eliminated. But those don't count and PolitiFact does not explain why. Then we're supposed to believe it is relevant to Obama's claim that the lack of detail makes it hard to tell whether the plan would substantially reduce revenues or not. PolitiFact should have noticed the ease with which Obama scored the loss of revenue: $4.6 trillion using the assumption that Republicans would cut no loopholes or deductions at all.
Obama claimed Republicans refused to name any tax deductions or loopholes they are willing to make. PolitiFact quoted Ryan offering three exceptions but somehow failed to notice.
PolitiFact twisted Obama's claim into something like "Republicans haven't made a concrete proposal about what deductions and loopholes they would eliminate." That's true, but it isn't what Obama said. And what Obama said leaves out gobs of critical context even aside from its literal falsehood,.
The grades:
Angie Drobnic Holan: F
Martha M. Hamilton: F
I'm amazed that a team effort can produce results this horrifyingly awful. Obama's literal claim was simply false if Ryan is counted as naming three specific examples by answering the interview question. PolitiFact offered no reason for dismissing the legitimacy of the examples.
Obama's underlying argument is effectively irrelevant if PolitiFact identified it correctly via the creative paraphrase.
The fact check consists mainly of semantic games and incoherent reasoning.
These are journalists reporting badly.
Correction/Clarification 4/10/2012: "Fact checkers" section had only Angie Drobnic Holan listed with her "F" grade. Altered that section to its customary appearance with all contributors listed along with their roles. Also on 4/10 eliminated one of two uses of the word "discretion" in the same sentence. Clarification 4/11/2012: Changed "Republicans" to "lower tax rates" to make sense of a sentence in the paragraph following the quotation of Obama's remarks.
Few things succinctly illustrate PolitiFact's incompetence than its routine re-imagining of word definitions.
PolitiFact's March 22 item on Mitt Romney's claim that ObamaCare "ends Medicare as we know it" (the parody wasn't obvious to PolitiFact, apparently) included a repeat of PolitiFact's insistence that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is not an "unaccountable" body.
What does "unaccountable" mean?
I'll put the bulk of the evaluation at the end (see "Afters"), but the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary provides the operative definition:
2unaccountable (to someone/something) not having to explain or give reasons for your actions to anyone
Too many government departments are unaccountable to the general public.
PolitiFact confuses the limits on the IPAB's power with accountability:
Is IPAB unaccountable? The answer is: No.
Members are chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The
board would not issue edicts. It would make recommendations. If Congress
does not act on its recommendations within a set time, the
recommendations are automatically implemented.
But Congress has other opportunities to intervene. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis,
the full House and Senate may consider amendments that change or repeal
the board's recommendations as long as those changes meet the same
fiscal criteria as the board itself uses. Congress is even granted a
one-time opportunity to introduce legislation to dismantle IPAB
permanently. This would require approval between January 2017 and Aug.
15, 2017, with the support of three-fifths of the members of the House
and Senate.
So Congress has multiple ways to intervene. This negates the argument that its actions are "unaccountable."
PolitiFact's supposed negation of Romney's argument relies on making up a new definition of "unaccountable," something along the lines of "able to do whatever you want no matter what anybody says or does."
By the operative definition, however, the IPAB is unaccountable by design, name and definition. It is the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
The word "Independent" does not occur in the name by accident.
The board is specifically designed to work independently of executive branch authority just like the Supreme Court (appointed by, but not under the authority of). And it is likewise independent in exercising authority within its statutory limits without owing any reason or explanation for its decisions to anyone, including Congress.
In short, the IPAB is unaccountable by name and definition but PolitiFact can't figure it out.
Afters: Webster's New World College Dictionary is the standard for publications using AP style. PolitiFact publishes based on a variant of AP style. Here's "unaccountable" as defined by Webster's New World College Dictionary:
Not accountable; not responsible
Not much help, is it? Perhaps we can fill in the blanks with the definition of "accountable":
Obliged to account for one's acts; responsible
And there it is, approximately as clear as in the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary version. The IPAB never has to account for its actions. It was made explicitly independent. Congressional actions that forestall implementation of IPAB recommendations are irrelevant to the accountability of the IPAB.
What does it say about PolitiFact that it can flub this issue with no less than a writer/researcher, editor and a team of three editors overseeing the final product?
Correction/Update: Changed "'Medicare are we know it'" to "'Medicare as we know it.'" The team of three editors that reviews my work prior to publication has been sacked.
Something about this one made me think of the old joke about the lawyer forced to swim through shark-infested waters. PolitiFact Florida impressively confirms one premise of an argument while failing to note that the argument is fallaciously equivocal. Indeed, the ACLU spokesman only utters the words. PolitiFact provides the equivocal definitions.
Another great moment in the history of journalism.
That's the central and underlying issue in this fact check, which stems from a case in Florida where a schoolteacher ran afoul of the law by not properly following new legislation spearheaded by Florida's Republican-dominated legislature.
The Colbert Report produced a non-serious treatment of the issue. An ACLU spokesperson contributed in kind.
The video commits any number of distortions of the issue, but we'll focus on just one.
PolitiFact:
One of the people Colbert interviewed for his sarcastic report is Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Florida officials claimed they needed to pass the law to prevent voter fraud, but these cases are actually pretty rare, he said.
"There are probably a larger number of shark attacks in Florida than there are cases of voter fraud," he said.
Simon says there are probably more shark attacks in Florida than cases of voter fraud. His statement is intended to minimize the problem of voter fraud, using the perception that few shark attacks occur in Florida to power his point. Take a guess at how many shark attacks occurred in Florida last year before encountering the stats.
Simon doesn't merely rely on the potential for inaccurate perceptions about the rate of shark attack. Better than that, he says shark attacks "probably" outnumber the number of cases of voter fraud.
What is a "case" of voter fraud?
The relevant understanding of "case" in this context is an instance or occurrence. A case of mistaken identity, for example, is any instance of mistaken identity.
That understanding is not for PolitiFact, however. PolitiFact takes "cases" and interprets it, at least in the practical sense, as the number of state investigations for voter fraud. A "case" in this fact check is a "case" in the sense of a designation by a state agency.
Does that equivocal drift in definitions affect the outcome of the fact check? Almost certainly.
PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):
The shark attack figures include documented instances of sharks attacking human victims. The voter fraud cases indicate the number of cases deemed legally sufficient for an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Summing up the table PolitiFact provides, shark attacks outnumber the "cases" of voter fraud 72-49 over the past four years. For only one of those years (2011) did the number of shark attacks fall short of the number of "cases" of voter fraud.
The fallacy in PolitiFact's reasoning comes easily to light.
For most of Florida's history as part of the United States it has prohibited voting by felons. Every time a felon votes illegally, it constitutes a case of voter fraud--albeit not the phony representation of "case" settled on by the fact checkers.
Most often nothing can be done to prosecute a case of voter fraud against a felon who votes illegally even though it happens with some regularity. The Miami Herald, for example, reported the following in the wake of its investigations of the 2000 presidential election:
At least 445 Florida felons voted illegally on Nov. 7, casting another cloud over a disputed presidential election already mired in legal challenges, a Herald investigation has found.
The tainted votes -- found in a review of nearly half a million votes cast in 12 Florida counties -- provide evidence that the presidential race was influenced by thousands of ineligible voters. Nearly six million voters in Florida's 67 counties cast ballots.
Got that? The Herald found evidence that thousands of ineligible votes were cast in just one election. But let's treat the numbers conservatively. The Herald says at least 445 felons voted illegally--fraudulently--in Florida. Add that 445 to the 49 "cases" of voter fraud listed on PolitiFact's chart and we end with a total of 494 cases of voter fraud. The total documented number of shark attacks in Florida is 637 over its entire history as recorded by the Florida Museum of Natural History.
Who thinks felons failed to vote illegally at least enough to make up the remaining 143 vote difference?
Obviously the number of cases of voter fraud in the relevant sense are more than enough to outpace the number of shark attacks. It is likely that ideology accounts for PolitiFact's eventual "Mostly True" ruling--not the facts.
The ACLU’s claim is true on its face, but we’re knocking it down a peg with consideration of a few things. One, the state’s count doesn’t represent a complete set of possible fraud being prosecuted in the state. Two, a "case" does not always include just one instance of fraud.
Three, the stat count artificially limits the number of cases of voter fraud in Florida by ignoring a number of sources of fraudulent votes. Thus the ACLU's claim is not true on its face. In addition, the ACLU argument misses the point that Republicans try to make in supporting strengthening of voter identification laws: The law as it stands provides few tools to identify cases of voter fraud. Nobody knows the full extent of voter fraud because of that lack.
About all we really know is that the cases of voter fraud are overpoweringly likely to outnumber the documented cases of shark attack.
Too bad we can't rely on PolitiFact to make the easy determination.
The grades:
Katie Sanders: F
Angie Drobnic Holan: F
This item receives the tag "journalists reporting badly."
Afters:
PolitiFact could have used this fact check to educate readers about the difficulty of uncovering voter fraud. Instead, it trivialized the issue to almost the degree achieved by the Colbert Report.
FDLE's experience in recent years, including cases predating the 1993 and 1994 " Motor Voter" changes, suggests the areas that are "ripe" for potential fraud fall primarily into these categories:
• Voter Registration Fraud: — Minimal identification and citizenship proof requirements provide ample opportunity for voter registration fraud. This includes specialized "changes of address" done solely to allow a vote in a particular election, when in fact, no actual change of address has occurred.
• Absentee Ballot Fraud: — The desire to facilitate the opportunity for each person to vote has resulted in increased opportunity to use absentee ballots improperly. (Once one has registered fraudulently, he or she can obtain an absentee ballot for every election thereafter if he or she wishes. The lack of "in-person, at-the-polls" accountability makes absentee ballots the "tool of choice" for those inclined to commit voter fraud.)
• Illegally or Improperly "Assisting" Others To Vote Their Absentee Ballot: — Those inclined to do so can capitalize on others' access to an absentee ballot by voting their ballot for them, often with the actual voter not knowing what has occurred. This offers tremendous opportunity for vote fraud, particularly to those who have access to the ill or infirm or those who do not have the ability to resist the influence of another as they are urged to vote in a "required" manner. It also encourages those inclined to commit voter fraud to seek to utilize absentee ballots provided to those whose interest in voting is marginal or non-existent.
• Vote-Buying: — Securing votes by payment or other "rewards" or the "selling of one's vote" — is an age-old problem that still exists.
Once registered to vote, any person may request and utilize an absentee ballot without ever having to appear in person to vote. If the voter registration process does not require significant proof of citizenship, address, and identity, then those inclined to commit fraud will capitalize on the process by successfully registering those who have no right to vote, and then "facilitate" their (illegal) vote by absentee ballot.
To re-emphasize the key issue, these vulnerabilities in the voting system remain very easy to exploit and very difficult to detect once they occur. Assuming that the number of cases deemed worthy of investigation by the Florida Department of State adequately represents the number of cases of actual voter fraud ranks as epic on the scale of folly (aka the Folly-O-Meter).
The latter rating came from PolitiFact Virginia almost a full year ago.
On the face of it, one can imagine a reconciliation of the two rulings. But it's doubtful if you've looked at the one for Obama after evaluating the one for Griffith.
The best part of it is that PolitiFact may have flubbed both rulings. The EPA was leaning toward an exemption for homogenized milk. But the exemption would not have covered raw milk, which should have left Griffith's claim at least partly true. And if raw milk received no exemption from the EPA then Obama's claim is approximately half true as well. A raw milk spill would still be treated just like an oil spill even after President Obama supposedly eliminated the rule that required a milk spill to be treated like an oil spill.
Welcome to the wonderful world of PolitiFact fact checking.
Update: Looks like the EPA did get around to exempting all milk products from the rule. Griffith was still partially correct at worst, and President Obama did not eliminate an EPA rule. Rather, Obama's EPA exempted milk from a rule that remains in effect. And Obama's statement obscures the administration's vacillating actions on the issue:
"The Obama Administration pulled back the rule in January of 2009, then reissued it in November, and to large degree it was the same rule," Schlegel said.
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
Louis Jacobson: writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton: editor
Robert Farley and Bill Adair filled the corresponding roles for the Sunstein item.
Analysis:
Before examining the text of PolitiFact's fact check, let's take a moment to look at the initial presentation of the two items we're comparing.
The top portions seem very comparable. Gingrich is said to have "suggested" something and Sunstein is said to have "advocated" something.
The middle portions differ. In Brooks' case, the headline material stick with the narrow description of Brooks, claim, paraphrasing "has suggested" with "once proposed." The nearby "Truth-O-Meter tells readers what to think of Brooks' claim ("True"). PolitiFact handles the chain email differently. Instead of paraphrasing the material just above, PolitiFact includes its assessment in the statement. And we get the "Half True" graphic. The "then thought better of it" part ends up justifying a rating other than "True."
Now let's follow PolitiFact's little tale about Brooks and Gingrich--both conservatives, so there's something for everyone to like on both sides of the partisan divide.
PolitiFact:
Brooks cites negatively what he considered half-baked ideas by
Gingrich. "For example, he has called for ‘a massive new program to
build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the moon’s resources.’ He has
suggested that ‘a mirror system in space could provide the light
equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for
nighttime lighting of the highways.’"
The space-mirror system seemed so outlandish that we felt compelled to check whether Gingrich really suggested it.
So that's the issue: Did Gingrich suggest the space mirror system Brooks mentions?
In the item we're using for comparison, PolitiFact was checking the claim (quoting PolitiFact) that "President Barack Obama's nominee to be the administration's regulatory
czar once advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts for the Internet, one
that would require partisan sites to link to sites with opposing
viewpoints."
PolitiFact did not receive a response from Brooks asking for the source of his claim. PolitiFact surmised the source was Andrew Ferguson in the New York Times magazine. But Ferguson's account only hints at the notion that the space mirrors were Gingrich's suggestion. As PolitiFact presented it:
Here’s a portion of what Ferguson wrote:
"Gingrich’s first book, Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future,
came out in 1984 and contained the seeds of much of what was to follow.
Beneath its cover image — a flag-draped eagle inexplicably threatening
the space shuttle— the backbencher Gingrich was identified as chairman
of the congressional Space Caucus, a position that inspired a series of
‘space cadet’ jokes that took years to die. Window of Opportunity was co-written by Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, and a science-fiction writer called David Drake. ...
"In Window of Opportunity, Gingrich introduced himself as a
futurist, a role he has played off and on throughout his career. There
are problems inherent in futurism, most of them involving the future,
which the futurist is obliged to predict (it’s his job) and which seldom
cooperates as he would hope. Gingrich has called some and missed some.
In 1984, he saw more clearly than most that computers would touch every
aspect of commercial and private life, but nobody any longer wants to
build ‘a large array of mirrors [that] could affect the earth’s
climate,’ warming it up so farmers could extend the growing season."
Because the quotes from Brooks and Ferguson are slightly different, we
wanted to look directly at the book ourselves before making our
judgment.
It isn't that what Brooks and Ferguson wrote is simply "slightly different." That's fairly normal with a paraphrase. The problem that invites deeper investigation is the uncertainty as to whether Gingrich advocated a system of space mirrors. So it apparently comes down to the book.
PolitiFact:
In the book, Gingrich proposes (among many other ideas) "five simple
steps to a bold future" in space, most unusually a lottery in which
randomly selected taxpayers would win a spot on a space shuttle flight.
But the floating mirror idea isn’t on this list. Instead, it’s included
in Gingrich's recap of a June 1979, NASA-sponsored new concepts
symposium in Woods Hole, Mass., "where 30 experts brainstormed a range
of pioneering options for NASA worthy of Lewis and Clark."
Just in case the paragraph above obscures PolitiFact's findings, they did not find Gingrich mentioning mirrors when he gave recommendations. They found the mirrors mentioned when he presented some ideas from a NASA-sponsored brainstorming session.
Where's the advocacy?
PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):
Here’s how Gingrich summarized the idea:
"The climate group at the Woods Hole conference suggested that a large
array of mirrors could affect the earth’s climate by increasing the
amount of sunlight received by particular areas, citing recent
feasibility studies exploring the possibilities of preventing frosts in
Florida or enabling farmers in high altitudes to plant their wheat
earlier.
"A mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many
full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the
highways. Ambient light covering entire areas could reduce the current
danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged
to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods,
so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping."
Brooks’ portrayal glosses over the fact that Gingrich was primarily
reciting proposals made by participants at a NASA-sponsored forum.
Still, Gingrich cited them approvingly.
I have Gingrich's book before me as I write. The relevant passage occurs in Chapter 2: "Americans and the Greatest Frontier." PolitiFact's reporting about the book is perfectly accurate and complete, except I can't figure out the justification for the claim "Gingrich cited them approvingly." Clearly Gingrich found the ideas coming out of the brainstorm session exciting. That's reason enough to put them in a book. But can we justify an equivalency between that and specific advocacy of the space mirror idea?
Where's the advocacy? PolitiFact admits that Gingrich was "primarily" citing the proposals of others. We get no objective evidence of the type of advocacy Brooks suggests.
PolitiFact:
Still, we didn’t want to stop with a look at whether Brooks framed the
issue fairly. We also wanted to know whether this was ever a mainstream
idea -- and whether it’s technologically feasible.
These issues are irrelevant to whether Brooks' claim is true. They are relevant to Brooks' apparent underlying argument that Gingrich's supposed suggestion of putting mirrors in space is crazy.
Of course, that kind of sidesteps the concept of a brainstorming session (come up with ideas regardless of merit) and ignores the prestige, if any, of the participants at NASA's symposium. Apparently the space mirror idea came from climate scientists. Some people have suggested space mirrors could help alleviate problems associated with global climate change.
PolitiFact's story acknowledges the global warming connection through the testimony of one science expert, though it concludes with a kicker quotation from another supposedly neutral expert:
Raymond S. Bradley, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts,
put it simply: "This is not a mainstream idea. It is one of the dumbest
ideas I have heard of."
Bradley doesn't sound like the sort of person who would fit in well at a brainstorming session.
But all this window dressing aside, where's the advocacy?
PolitiFact:
Our ruling
Gingrich co-wrote his book more than a quarter century ago, and since
he doesn’t appear to have reiterated the call for floating mirrors in
recent years, we can safely assume the idea is no longer at the top of
his policy agenda. But did cite the idea approvingly in his book, so we
rate Brooks’ statement True.
Funny. The gracious snarkmeisters at PolitiFact can assume the idea is "no longer at the top of Gingrich's policy agenda." This after their story failed to turn up any evidence that the idea had ever been anywhere on Gingrich's policy agenda.
We reach the end of PolitiFact's analysis without any solid evidence that Gingrich ever advocated the idea of placing giant mirrors in space for any reason at all, yet David Brooks warrants a "True" rating?
No, I haven't forgotten the comparison to Cass Sunstein:
Yes, Sunstein acknowledges this was an idea he once threw out there —
albeit, in his words, "tentatively." But he now thinks it's a bad idea.
So the chain e-mail/article is correct that Sunstein once suggested it.
But contrary to the headline, it's a position he no longer holds, as he
has since said strongly and repeatedly. Once true. No longer. That
leaves us at Half True.
Readers may notice a discordant thread in the above conclusion. PolitiFact's own headline material does not match in substance the World Net Daily headline associated with the story about Sunstein. The fact check was of the chain email. While PolitiFact did not provide a copy of the email, it's at least clear that the claim PolitiFact highlighted in its headline material is a true claim. The entire justification for dropping the chain email claim apparently comes from the World Net Daily headline. Applying that standard to PolitiFact, their story fact checking the claim about Sunstein is "Half True."
PolitiFact provided no evidence that Gingrich had advocated a system of space mirrors.
PolitiFact found that Sunstein definitely had advocated a type of fairness doctrine for the Internet.
Gingrich did not write to withdraw his space mirror proposal as Sunstein did with his Internet fairness doctrine, but the most obvious explanation for that comes from the fact that Gingrich didn't advocate putting up space mirrors in the first place.
Yet the claim about Gingrich received a "True" rating ("The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.") while the claim about Sunstein received a rating of "Half True" ("The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.")
It isn't relevant that Gingrich never specifically advocated the idea right through to the present day?
Seriously?
The grades:
Louis Jacobson: F
Martha Hamilton: F
Robert Farley and Bill Adair receive honorary failing grades for the bait-and-switch technique they used to justify the "Half True" rating on the Sunstein claim. People in glass houses ...
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
PolitiFact delivered on the above principle this time--after a fashion.
The issue
On occasion I'll provide an expanded clip of PolitiFact's visual presentation of the story to help emphasize the way our supposed fact checkers mislead the audience.
PolitiFact sends the message that it is beyond merely false that Barack Obama said "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."
The fact checkers:
Louis Jacobson: writer, researcher
Bill Adair: editor
Analysis:
This is an amazingly inept effort by PolitiFact.
You've been warned.
PolitiFact:
On the eve of a presidential trip to New Hampshire on Nov. 22, 2011,
Mitt Romney’s campaign released an ad targeting President Barack Obama.
In the ad, the Romney campaign used a quote that prompted an immediate
counterattack from the Obama camp, which argued that it had been taken
out of context.
Wait a minute. The Obama camp complained about the quotation being taken out of context? So Obama actually said what Romney claimed he said? What about the headline and deck material making it look the opposite? What about that "Pants on Fire" rating when PolitiFact's rating system until recently had a category for accurate statements that take things out of context ("Half True")?
What's going on here? Jacobson had better come through with a spectacular explanation for this one.
PolitiFact:
The 60-second ad,
called "Believe in America," is designed to contrast "candidate Obama
from 2008 with President Obama of today," highlighting "his failures in
between," according to the Romney campaign.
The ad contrasts a 2008 campaign speech by Obama with text on the
screen that criticizes Obama’s economic record, including, "Greatest
Jobs Crisis Since Great Depression," "Record Home Foreclosures" and
"Record National Debt."
The ad then has a clip of Obama saying, "If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose."
PolitiFact fails to make clear that every one of Obama's words come from that same 2008 campaign speech. And the Romney ad prefaces the quotations with the year in which they were made: 2008.
Here's the ad:
The ad contains nothing to cue the viewer that Obama was speaking about the 2012 election in the last clip. Paying attention to the context, the viewer is left to figure out what Obama was talking about in 2008. Obviously Obama isn't talking about his own re-election prospects on Oct. 16, 2008--not in those words. Obama hadn't been elected at that point. The election didn't take place until November of that year.
PolitiFact somehow fails to see it:
The clear implication is that Obama believes that his economic record is
so bad that he will lose in 2012 unless he can steer the conversation
away from the economy.
Why would Obama have any beliefs at all about his economic record as president way back in 2008? This supposed "clear implication" occurs only if the viewer either ignores the context or has an unaccountably difficult time taking obvious clues from the context. We're not in Sherlock Holmes territory, here.
But PolitiFact rolls with it:
But the Obama camp, among others, immediately charged that the clip was taken out of context. Was it?
Here’s what Obama said in the October 2008 speech, which came about two weeks before he defeated Sen. John McCain:
"Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time, even as
you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying
in your homes, my opponent's campaign announced earlier this month that
they want to ‘turn the page’ on the discussion about our economy so they
can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead," Obama
said in the speech. "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote,
‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’"
So the comment is drastically different than the way it's portrayed in the Romney ad. Obama was actually saying that his opponent’s campaign three years earlier had
said, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." That
context is not included in the Romney ad -- and leaving it out sends a
profoundly different message.
1) The claim from the Obama camp that the quotation was taken out of context deserves its own fact check.
2) PolitiFact is correct that Obama was referring to something said by the McCain campaign.
3) PolitiFact is incorrect that omitting the context sends a profoundly different message. I will illustrate.
Let's make it a 35 second ad instead of a 30 second ad, adding in the full quotation from Obama, and let PolitiFact explain it just like before:
The ad contrasts a 2008 campaign speech by Obama with text on the
screen that criticizes Obama’s economic record, including, "Greatest
Jobs Crisis Since Great Depression," "Record Home Foreclosures" and
"Record National Debt."
The ad then has a clip of Obama saying, "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote,
‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’"
What is the message of the ad with the context included?
No doubt someone could complain that in our augmented version Romney makes it look like McCain is saying that Obama can't get re-elected on his economic record. But we can even make it a 45 second ad, including context sufficient to ensure that every viewer understands that McCain was talking about the economy in 2008 and the GOP prospects for the presidential election and it still doesn't change the point of the ad.
The point of the ad is that if it wasn't proper to run on the economy in 2008 then it's even worse to run on the economy in 2012, with many economic indicators far worse than they were in 2008.
And the fact that Obama mockingly brought up what the McCain campaign said pretty well confirms that Obama did not think the 2008 economy was good election material for the incumbent party. Is Obama supposed to think otherwise in 2011-2012 with unemployment over 8 percent, the housing market still a shambles and an anemic growth rate?
That's the point of the ad. It doesn't change with the context added. And the fact that it doesn't change with the context added means that the quotation was not taken misleadingly out of context.
PolitiFact, of course, fails to see it that way:
Our ruling
We certainly think it’s fair for Romney to attack Obama for his
response to the economy. And the Romney camp can argue that Obama’s
situation in 2011 is ironic considering the comments he made in 2008.
But those points could have been made without distorting Obama’s words,
which have been taken out of context in a ridiculously misleading way.
We rate the Romney ad’s portrayal of Obama’s 2008 comments Pants on
Fire.
Kudos to PolitiFact for at least admitting the real point of the ad is legitimate despite missing the real point. Only viewers completely unable to appreciate the significance of Obama's remarks from 2008 could miss the real point of the ad. The real point flies whether McCain said it of himself, whether McCain said it of Obama or whether Obama said it of himself.
In a situation like that no additional context is needed. The Romney campaign was justified in omitting it.
The grades:
Louis Jacobson: F
Bill Adair: F
What can you say about a team that wrote a knee-jerk response to the Romney ad? What can you say about a team that produced a presentation that makes it appear false that Obama said something that Obama did say? What can you say about a team that corrupted the Truth-O-Meter's supposed grading system in favor of its subjective knee-jerk response?
They're journalists reporting badly.
Update:
ABC News serves up a handy reminder that PolitiFact isn't the only impossibly inept news source out there. ABC ran the following under the headline "Mitt Romney ad misquotes President Obama":
Mitt Romney’s inaugural TV ad of the 2012 campaign aired today in New
Hampshire just as President Obama traveled to the state, but the ad
immediately came under fire from Democrats and fact-checkers for
incorrectly quoting Obama.
The White House, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s
re-election campaign accused the Romney campaign today of unfairly
twisting the president’s words.
We have people reporting the news who do not know what is and what is not a misquote.
It's stuff like this that makes it plain to so many, regardless of a want of an easy scientific proof, that the leftward tilt of media ideology results in left-tilted news reporting.
Watch Romney’s ad again. The point wasn’t “look at what Obama said!” The
point was that the statement about talking about the economy is true
when it comes to Obama. You could add the full context and it might
even hit Obama harder because of the obvious irony. Moreover, campaigns
do this kind of thing all the time.
Word.
But don't expect PolitiFact to pay any attention to the criticism unless it is picked up and amplified by its primarily liberal fan base.
