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.