Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Alan Grayson and global wealth inequality

To assess the truth for a numbers claim, the biggest factor is the underlying message.
--PolitiFact editor Bill Adair

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson: writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman: editor

Analysis:

We have here another specimen where PolitiFact makes a clear exception to its principle that the most important aspect of claims involving numbers is the underlying message.  There is no attempt in the story to either identify or evaluate the underlying argument of Democrat Alan Grayson.  One could imagine that PolitiFact did not extend the effort because Grayson's point was opinion--that unequal wealth distribution is unfair at least in some sense--but without any explanation to that effect we're left with PolitiFact relaxing its principles without explanation.

Before we start evaluating the Grayson fact check, have a look at how PolitiFact pans Sarah Palin for an accurate report of the U.S. ranking of defense spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product:

"In absolute dollars, we spend almost as much as all other countries combined," (Todd) Harrison said. "So saying we are 25th is a bit misleading and a selective use of facts."

We agree. Although she's technically correct, the numbers are wildly skewed by tiny, non-industrialized countries. We find her claim Barely True. 

The Palin rating adequately demonstrates that PolitiFact will take an underlying message into account for a number ranking claim such as Grayson's, at least on a selective basis.

Grayson, responding to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow's question about why the "Occupy Wall Street" protests resonate with Americans (yellow highlights indicate portion used by PolitiFact):

The second thing is that they`ve created a system that is enormously unequal. And the result of that is people are struggling to find a job to pay their bills, to pay their rent, to pay their credit card bills.  According to Wikipedia, there are only five countries in the entire planet that are more unequal than the United States in the distribution of our wealth. That`s a system that Wall Street created, that Wall Street maintains, and that Wall Street enforces.

PolitiFact puts immediate and exclusive focus on the numbers claim:

We should note here that we’re glad that Grayson cited his sources -- in the midst of a national TV interview no less! -- but we’re also disappointed that his source was Wikipedia, which is open to editing by anyone.

Luckily for Grayson, the Wikipedia page he cited had sourced its numbers to a peer-reviewed paper. The paper was coauthored by four academics, James B. Davies, Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks and Edward N. Wolff and published in The Economic Journal in 2010.

Grayson was correct that the United States had the fifth-highest Gini coefficient for wealth in the world, trailing only Denmark, Namibia, Switzerland and Zimbabwe. In other words, the U.S. distribution of wealth was more unequal than all but four other nations.

If the PolitiFact team had paid closer attention, they would have noticed that the numbers on which Grayson relies were not published in any peer-reviewed journal.  The numbers Grayson used ultimately came from an appendix (Excel file) to a working paper that preceded the version published in The Economic Journal. 

PolitiFact reports falsely in claiming that PolitiFact sourced its numbers to the linked "a peer-reviewed paper."  Sift through the linked work (see Update below) from now until doomsday and you won't find "Namibia" mentioned at all nor any comprehensive list of Gini coefficients (identified by PolitiFact as the primary statistic used to identify inequality) for all the nations of the earth.

Wikipedia apparently made no secret of the source of the information.  PolitiFact's research simply missed it (click image for enlarged view):

(clipped from Wikipedia.org)

As we continue evaluating PolitiFact's story we'll obtain some potential clues as to why the appendix did not appear with the published version of the paper.

Grading PolitiFact: The NRSC and "the deciding vote"

When is the deciding vote not the deciding vote?  And, alternatively, when is the deciding vote the deciding vote?  Never fear!  PolitiFact is here to cast the deciding vote in making the determination.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor

Analysis:

Is there more than one way to understand the phrase "the deciding vote"?  If so, we ought to keep watch for the fallacy of equivocation in this PolitiFact item.

First, the ad:





PolitiFact:

"One vote makes a difference," the narrator says. "Michael Bennet cast the deciding vote for Obama's stimulus that wasted billions, added to the debt and didn't create the jobs they promised. Bennet cast the deciding vote to allow passage of the trillion-dollar health care bill that slashed Medicare, hurting seniors. Bennet's vote was the key to billions in job-killing taxes, too. Michael Bennet: He's been their vote, not Colorado's."

We won't tackle the ad's description of the substance of the two bills. (We've addressed some of those points in the past.) Instead, we'll look at whether it's fair to call Bennet the deciding vote on those bills.

 PolitiFact looks at whether it's fair to call Bennet the deciding vote on those bills.  In the three paragraphs following the quoted portion above, PolitiFact notes that the bills were passed by a single vote in each case and in the next paragraph presents a fair summary of the NRSC ad's argument:

The idea that the Democrats couldn't spare even a single vote is the crux of the NRSC's argument.

Now we can narrow the question a tad.  Is it fair a vote "the deciding vote" if it is simply one vote among many on a measure that succeeded by a single vote?

We ran the issue by a variety of congressional scholars, and most agreed that it was a stretch for the NRSC to label Bennet's vote "the deciding vote."

"That statement is misleading and a distortion of fact," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University.

Was the vote in which most agree that it was a stretch close?  Was Thurber (who gave to Charles Schumer's election campaign in the past) the deciding vote?

Seriously, is this the type of thing for which experts need to vote?  Shouldn't this fact check consist of a simple examination of common English usage?  Is it misleading if people are not reasonably misled?

PolitiFact finds the NRSC ad "Barely True" based on the majority criticism a group of experts.

It's a convenient way to avoid doing the fact check the proper way:

"I cast the deciding vote to pass health care reform."
--Blanche Lincoln

"Every Democrat cast the deciding health-care vote."--WSJ opinion

"The court divided along ideological lines on the decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote and writing the majority opinion."
--Kenneth P. Vogel, for Politico

"Prejudice could cast deciding vote for Obama, Hillary" --Chicago Sun-Times (headline)

"It was defeated by one vote. Ric Keller was the deciding vote against our troops."
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)

"... Arlen Specter cast the deciding vote in favor of a Recovery Act that has helped pull us back from the brink."
--President Obama


"... O'Connor repeatedly cast the fifth and deciding vote ..."
--Charles Lane, staff writer for the Washington Post

Are all of these folks wrong?  I included two examples touching the Supreme Court for a reason:  I think it represents a suitable comparison for the NRSC ad.  Any time two sides are closely balanced when it comes time to vote the tie-breaker is the deciding vote.  With nine on the bench one or two justices will sometimes obtain the label "swing vote" and their vote will end up being called "the deciding vote" even though there may have been no delay in the voting that makes the swing voter's vote any different from any other on the Court.

The answer to the question, then, is a resounding yes.  It is fair to call any person whose vote was part of a one-vote victory the deciding vote.  People will typically understand what is meant.  And that brings us back to the ad.  Was it clear from the context what was meant?

It seems clear enough.  PolitiFact uncovered the ad's argument with no apparent difficulty ("Democrats couldn't spare even a single vote").  The language from the ad does nothing to suggest that Bennet's vote was delayed or held special status other than by calling it "the deciding vote."  But since the overall context simply conveys the message that Bennet's presence enabled Democrats to win some notable one-vote victories this fact check does, as anticipated, serve as an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

Is it possible that somebody might be misled by the language?  Sure.  But no attempt at communication is foolproof.  On the point at issue, the ad is accurate enough to rate as high as "True," and the "Barely True" rating is a stretch.


My justification applies just as well to Alan Grayson's statement about Ric Keller, of course.  Obama's praise of Arlen Specter seems like a different story since the Recovery Act passed with 61 votes in the Senate.  Where was PolitiFact on that one?

PolitiFact's concluding paragraph:

The NRSC ad would have been quite justified in describing Bennet's vote for either bill as "crucial" or "necessary" to passage of either bill, or even as "a deciding vote." But we can't find any rationale for singling Bennet

I was poised to give both PolitiFacters "D" grades for at least getting in the ballpark with the "Barely True" rating and recognizing the basic legitimacy of the ad's argument.  But the logical jumble of the concluding paragraph makes that impossible.  Jacobson identified the message of the ad ("Democrats couldn't spare even a single vote") and then finds that argument out of agreement with other senators playing a key role.

That makes no sense.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson: F
Martha Hamilton: F

Grading PolitiFact: Alan Grayson defines his opponent

Alan Grayson doesn't know when to quit.  Neither does PolitiFact.


The issue:

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

PolitiFact:

Here's a full transcript of the new ad:

Daniel Webster's Washington backers are attacking Alan Grayson on women's issues. The facts on Webster's record:

Fact: Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships.

Fact: Webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home.

Fact: Webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child.

Those are the facts. Don't let Daniel Webster make the laws we will have to live with.

The story is obviously concerned with the third supposed "fact."

We checked with his campaign to confirm whether he is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and a spokeswoman confirmed it.

Good move.  And from a pro-life standpoint an abortion is always a moral wrong.  Kathy Mears was apparently the "spokeswoman."  I'm not sure why she goes unnamed in the story.  The specific words of her statement on behalf of Webster may be important.  We do get specific words from Webster's campaign website: (under "Sanctity of Life"):

• As affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life is our first right.  Daniel Webster would support legislation that the Constitutional protections of life and liberty extend to the unborn.
• Dan would oppose any use of public revenues to promote or perform abortions or to support organizations that promote or perform abortions.

PolitiFact mentions the first part but not the second.  And the two bullet points seem mismatched to some degree.  Isn't the second one needless in light of the first?  The first is probably best understood as a legislative ideal with little chance of passage.  The latter represents a realistic goal.  But it doesn't sound quite as scary to claim that "Webster wants to prevent public revenues from being used to provide or support abortion services!"

PolitiFact:

So Grayson's ad is correct on Webster's philosophical beliefs about abortion. But does that mean that Webster "would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child"?

Grayson's ad provides an ambiguous take on Webster's philosophical beliefs about abortion.  One can oppose something philosophically without thinking it is the government's role to enforce that opposition.  Legislation recognizing rights of life and liberty for the unborn might fill that bill.  But then again it might not.  Credit goes to PolitiFact for asking the right question.

In trying to reach the answer to that question, the story goes over Webster's legislative career and notes a fairly consistent pragmatic streak, including Webster saying that Florida isn't ready for a broad abortion ban such as that proposed in Kansas.  Not ready in what way?

So where does this leave us? There is no question that Webster believes that abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother, and that gives the Grayson campaign a lot of cover for its charge.

Is it true that there "is no question that Webster believes that abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother"?  If there is no question on that point then PolitiFact should have settled it with evidence rather than with a statement lacking the benefit of clear evidential support.  Webster's legislative history did not offer that kind of support.

To review:

• Parental consent for minors seeking abortion (1988)
• Woman's Right To Know Act (1997)
• State ban on "partial birth" abortion (1997)
• Voted in favor of parental notification bill (1998)
• Guardians for unborn children (2004)
• Requirement that parents receive notification if minor child sought abortion (2005)
• Ultrasound requirement prior to abortion (2008)

That simply doesn't add up to "There is no question that Webster believes that abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother."  Nowhere in the story does PolitiFact unequivocally support that claim with evidence.  Yet that supposed finding gives Grayson his cover.

Grayson's charge has a substantial grounding in the truth, so we rate it Mostly True.

Huh?

Mostly True – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
Half True – The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Barely True – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

The PolitiFact analysis found that it could not be known how Webster would act on abortion legislation.

It's impossible to know precisely what abortion bills Webster would propose or support if he were to be elected to the U.S. House.

So how can it follow that Grayson's "statement is accurate"?  Grayson's ad claims to know how Webster would legislate.  That was another PolitiFact finding:

So Grayson's ad is correct on Webster's philosophical beliefs about abortion. But does that mean that Webster "would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child"?

We don't think that's so clear-cut, since Webster's legislative efforts on abortion, while extensive, have stopped well short of what Grayson's ad suggests.

Taking into consideration PolitiFact's description of its grading system, this story is logically incoherent.  Grayson's claim cannot be ruled accurate and impossible to judge at the same time and in the same sense.  That is a contradiction.


A literalism interlude

Now a brief digression into my initial interest in this PolitiFact story.

Look again at the claim Grayson makes of Webster:

Fact: Webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child.

If I'm playing dumb as PolitiFact occasionally does (think Rudy Giuliani and his claim that no terrorist attacks happened under Bush), I can take Grayson as saying that if a woman is attacked then her attacker has the right to have her bear his children.  So let's say Joe Smith rapes Jane Doe.  After doing his time, Smith decides he wants to have kids.  So, thanks to the Webster Act of 2013, Smith's victim must then receive his seed and bear his child(ren).

Of course that's not what Grayson meant.  But it is the literal meaning of what he said, just as surely as when Giuliani was taken to task over the 9-11 attacks occurring during the Bush administration.

Everyone deserves charitable interpretation.  PolitiFact acted properly in not taking Grayson in wooden-literal fashion.  I look forward to the extension of that courtesy to all subjects of PolitiFact stories.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Internal inconsistency is one of the worst possible features of a journalistic account.  The problem is worse when the inconsistency represents the main point of the story.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Alan Grayson and illegal divorce

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is doing a tremendous job of helping is opponent, Daniel Webster, rise in the polls.  And PolitiFact was there.


The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

Watch it while you can. I'm not sure how long the Grayson campaign will stick with it.




PolitiFact:

In this item, we wanted to examine two other sweeping allegations in the ad -- that Webster wants to make divorce illegal and that he tried to deny battered women the right to divorce their abusers.

Though Bartosek wrote to me stating that PolitiFact tries to stick to a single issue, it seems fair to keep these two linked since they stem from the same proposed legislation, House Bill 1585, a state bill that would have made Florida the first state to provide for covenant marriage.


As for the underlying argument, which sometimes attracts PolitiFact's attention and sometimes does not, the Grayson ad makes that pretty clear:  "Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us."

PolitiFact found that Grayson's ad cited the wrong bill, and the story does an adequate job of explaining covenant marriage.

Then author Jacobson analyzed portions of the bill:

The covenant marriage agreement "may not be dissolved except by reason of adultery," according to the bill Webster filed.

And:

The bill includes no mention of physical abuse.

And:

It also discusses alimony, noting that "no alimony shall be granted to an adulterous wife," but makes no mention about the alimony rights of an adulterous man.

The bill makes no mention of alimony rights for any man, including an adulterous one.  It does, however, provide for alimony where the woman's "potential earning capacity would cause a reduction in her standard of living."  Jacobson's account feeds into Grayson's narrative to some extent by omitting the advantage a woman might enjoy under the bill while emphasizing the disadvantage with respect to effects of adultery.



After including some additional information about covenant marriage statistics in other states and related commentary from some expert sources, Jacobson provides a pair of summary paragraphs.

First:

When Webster was a member of the Florida House, he introduced a bill that would have created something called covenant marriage. This special form of marriage was entirely voluntary, but if couples agreed to it, they would not be able to divorce under state law except in the case of adultery. The bill did not list physical or sexual abuse as grounds for divorce.

Is that "wanting to make divorce illegal"?  Only if the covenant marriage bill eliminated the other statutory provision for marriage and we ignore entirely the allowance for divorce because of adultery.  Grayson's failure to qualify the statement as applying only to covenant marriage leads the viewer to understand that divorce would not be an option at all under Webster's proposal.

Second:

Webster's bill wouldn't make all divorce illegal. It wouldn't even make divorce for all people who chose covenant marriage entirely illegal. There's a small window out for adultery. But Grayson is right that there was no protection in Webster's marriage bill for abused wives. So, in theory, someone who chose covenant marriage and was being abused might not be granted a divorce. Because all of that context is critical to understanding Grayson's claim, we rate it Half True.

Sacrebleu.

If statistics on covenant marriage from other states serve as any sort of guide, Webster's bill would have removed most existing statutory justifications for divorce from a distinct minority of all marriages.

Grayson is not right that there is no protection in Webster's marriage bill for abused wives, not that Grayson made any such specific statement.  The protections occur at the front end via requirements for parental consent, premarital counseling with emphasis on the serious nature of the covenant marriage commitment and  written acknowledgment from the parties that they understand that seriousness.

Note that PolitiFact ends up giving Grayson a "Half True" because the context is "critical to understanding Grayson's claim."

Time for yet another review of PolitiFact's description of its grading system:

Half True – The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

"Webster wants to make divorce illegal":  Accurate but leaves out important details?

Webster "tried to deny battered women the right to divorce their abusers":  Accurate but leaves out important details?

Seriously?

Barely True – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

Isn't that more like it?  Like the "different impression" that the proposed changes would be be voluntary and apply only to the covenant marriage arrangement?  Like the "different impression" that the bill did not mention battered women at all?

And how about that underlying argument?  Is a voluntary covenant marriage provision an effective way to force one's radical fundamentalist views on people?

The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Sharockman and Bartosek appeared to ignore their own findings while assigning the Truth-O-Meter rating.  Ignoring the underlying argument also served to boost Grayson's rating.  The underlying argument was ridiculous given the supposed evidence in support.  "Half True" was very generous.

Afters:

States (perhaps all of them) do have restrictions on divorce aside from those on covenant marriage, though with the caveat that "irreconcilable differences" may encompass virtually anything.  You can't divorce over smelly feet, for example, unless you classify it as an irreconcilable difference or the like.  And it may depend on the judge as to whether that would fly.  Point being, if allowing divorce only in cases of adultery counts as making divorce illegal then divorce is already technically illegal.  The difference is the number of exceptions, which is admittedly far more restrictive for a covenant marriage.

I should also mention that it is plausible that Webster might have welcomed changes to his proposed bill, including allowances for men to receive alimony and for battered women to have recourse to a divorce.

Grading PolitiFact: Alan Grayson announces the rankings

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Lukas Pleva:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) appeared on The Ed Show on MSNBC.  Grayson drew PolitiFact's attention with this:

UYGUR: I swear to you that my next question was if they accused him of being a Martian, do you have to come out every once in a while and say the president is not Martian?

(LAUGHTER)

GRAYSON: It‘s sad. Look, we really are cheating ourselves.  This can be a heaven on Earth. This could be an outstanding place to live, the very top in the entire world.

Instead, we‘re 50^th in the world -- 50^th in life expectancy, just below Albania. We are dead last in math test scores. And believe me, the math is the same in Seoul, Korea, as it is in here. It‘s the same math.

We have to work harder to solve our problems. And we can‘t get distracted all the time by the people who want to distract us for their own selfish purposes.

(yellow highlights added to emphasize portion quoted by PolitiFact)

Grayson made many dubious statements during his television appearance.  Just in the quoted portion he made the claim the U.S. was ranked No. 50 worldwide in life expectancy, ranked below Albania for life expectancy and "dead last" in math test scores.  PolitiFact apparently found the latter two claims uninteresting.

Picking a focus from among those three statements represents a case of framing.  Such framing may make a story potentially difficult to distinguish from political spin.

Take it away, Lukas Pleva: