Grading PolitiFact (Florida): The Word Police accuse Marjorie Dannenfelser

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

The issue:

(image clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Amy Sherman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis:

PolitiFact tips off its complaint against Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion/pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, in the deck material reproduced above.  The quotation marks setting off "profit" as a word clue us in that PolitiFact's fact check hinges on the word.

Paul Bedard used Dannenfelser as a source for a May 26 blog for U.S. News & World Report:

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said: “The truly ‘anti-woman’ organization here is Planned Parenthood and the party that continues to defend its taxpayer funding when it has raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years. Fifty-four percent of Americans don’t want to be coerced into contributing to an organization they don’t believe in just by paying their taxes—nor should they be.”

Somehow PolitiFact Florida got wind of this exciting development:

For this Truth-O-Meter, we wanted to check Dannenfelser's claim that Planned Parenthood "raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years." We'll focus on two parts: Is the dollar figure right, and is 'profit' the right word?

Off we go on the dollar figure fact check, hopefully bearing in mind the fact that the underlying message is the most important thing when fact checking a numbers claim:

We contacted SBA List spokeswoman Mallory Quigley, who referred us to "excess of revenue over expenses" listed in Planned Parenthood's annual reports. Here is what those reports show:

2005-06: $55.8 million
2006-07: $114.8 million
2007-08: $85 million
2008-09: $63.4 million

Total: $319 million.

While the total comes out over $300 million, in apparent justification of Dannenfelser's claim, the numbers fail to account for a investment loss of $78.1 million in the last of the four reports.

PolitiFact frets over Planned Parenthood's inconsistency in accounting:

In the reports from other years, the financial data does not refer to investment losses or gains, and Sye said those amounts were simply included in the totals for those years. The extraordinary losses when the markets plunged for almost all investors, presented differently in the 2008-09 report, makes it awkward to combine the four years since Planned Parenthood didn't detail its investment losses or gains previously. Subtracting the $78 million would leave the group with about $240 million in revenue over expenses in the four-year period. But how much more or less is unknown since we were unable to obtain the actual investment income for the other years.

 I say pish posh.

The value of investments ought to reflect in the total net assets reported.  The alternate accounting was probably a theatrical strategy intended to influence donors to donate.  Subtract the $78 million from the supposed operating surplus and the remainder matches the newly reported net assets for the year ending in June 2009.  Simply taking the net assets at the start of the string of reports and subtracting that figure from the net asset value at the end ought to provide a useful figure reflecting Planned Parenthood's yearly net income.

Unfortunately, the resulting figure was about $210 million--suspiciously lower than the figure PolitiFact ended up using ($240 million).  About $11 million of the missing amount was reported as "other changes in net assets" and the rest went suspiciously missing between the end of the second report and the start of the third.  That might prove interesting to a journalist.  Or maybe not.  PolitiFact showed no signs of noticing.

As to the raw numbers, if we use Planned Parenthood's dubious reports we can determine that Dannenfelser inflated Planned Parenthood's increased asset value by 43 percent.  PolitiFact's figures would result in a somewhat lower inflation amount of 30 percent.

We should note that PolitiFact has in the past granted Barbara Boxer a "Half True" rating for a claim resting on a figure that was off by 355 percent.  On the other hand, Michele Bachmann received a "False" rating for a figure that was off from 42 to 76 percent.  So it's anybody's guess what ruling is thus far implied by Dannenfelser's imprecision.

PolitiFact:

In the second part of our fact-checking, does the "excess revenue over expenses" constitute a "profit"?

We sent Dannenfelser's claim to experts in nonprofit management and heard back from four. Three disagreed with using the term "profit" to describe excess revenues over expenses: Christopher Stone, faculty director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University; Herman B. "Dutch" Leonard, professor of public management at Harvard Kennedy School of Government and at the Harvard Business School; and Beth Gazley, assistant professor at Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

Sound the pedantry alert for this trio of experts.

Pedant No. 1:  Explain yourself, please.

"Bottom line: a nonprofit’s surplus should not be confused with profit," Stone wrote in an e-mail. "Profits are generated by businesses to reward investors. Businesses also use profits to provide additional compensation (bonuses tied to profits) for employees who help generate the profits for investors. Because nonprofits may not use their surpluses for either of these purposes, these surpluses should not be confused with profits. All surpluses must be devoted to the charitable purposes of the organization."

To be fair, PolitiFact may have simply applied Stone's answer in a pedantic fashion.  At face value Stone is exactly right that a nonprofit's surplus cash should not be confused with the profits a business distributes to its ownership group.  But it's hardly clear that Dannefelser's claim commits that type of confusion.  Rather, Dannenfelser simply employs a different (widely accepted) definition of "profit" than the one Stone uses:

3 : net income usually for a given period of time

Merriam-Webster

Pedant No. 2:  Explain yourself, please:

And Gazley wrote: "But more to the point, the 'taxpayer'-funded portions of the Planned Parenthood affiliates’ budgets are either program grants or reimbursements for services eligible for Medicaid. So the government-funded parts of the (Planned Parenthood) budget would NOT be generating a 'profit' – they would be used in full each year. This means any excess of revenues over expenses (AKA 'profit') would have come from other sources – private donations, endowment income, etc. So Ms. Dannenfelser’s argument that the taxpayers are somehow subsidizing this 'profit' is misleading."

Hilarious.  Of course the taxpayers subsidize the profit, just like allowing oil companies to drill for oil on federal lands for free would subsidize oil company profits even though "any excess of revenues over expenses (AKA 'profit') would have to come from other sources."  Gazely's statement is far more misleading than Dannenfelser's.  Even the best accounting tricks can't hide the obvious in this case.

PolitiFact spares us the explanation from Herman B. "Dutch" Leonard, but we do get the explanation from the lone expert out of step with the other three:

Terri Renner, longtime CPA and lecturer at Indiana University's school of Public and Environmental Affairs, argued that "the excess of revenues over expenses is the accounting definition of profit."

Renner's argument is unassailable, given that she is correct in identifying the operative definition of "profit."

But the Word Police from PolitiFact take their cues from the pedants:

We said we'd examine both the dollar figure and the word "profits." We think the "more than $300 million" description is off base because of the $78 million in losses, but neither Planned Parenthood nor the SBA List is saying definitively what the investment gains or losses were for the four-year period. Still, there is some element of truth in that it's at least scores of millions of dollars.


In the second part of our ruling, we looked at whether "excess revenue over expenses" for a nonprofit is the same as "profit." Most of the experts we consulted say no. And the one who would call it profit agrees that it's not treated the same way as profit for a corporation. Companies distribute their profits to shareholders and owners, while nonprofits put their excess revenues back into the organization's work. We think the real sting in this claim comes from the word "profits," so we weighed that more heavily than the vague dollar figures in our ruling. We rate this claim Barely True.

Respecting the numbers claim, remember that PolitiFact's numbers indicate a 30 percent error by Dannenfelser aside from the uncertainty created by Planned Parenthood's inability/unwillingness to divulge more precise figures.

The ruling on the use of "profit" is pure pedantry.  Dannefelser's use of the term fits perfectly with a standard usage and creates no apparent barrier to understanding the statement in accord with the context in which it was offered:  Planned Parenthood operates substantially in the black and therefore does not require over $350 million per year in government money.


The grades:

Amy Sherman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Journalists simply can't lend themselves out to pedantic experts or indulge in pedantry themselves by using the comments of experts as an ad hoc justification.  The trusting reader is rendered less intelligent by this fact check and therefore the special tag "Journalists Reporting Badly" applies.

Grading PolitiFact: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Medicare solvency & kid gloves

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

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Angie Drobnic Holan:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

"To assess the truth for a numbers claim," wrote PolitiFact editor Bill Adair back in 2008, "the biggest factor is the underlying message."

Adair's fact-checking guideline accords with Adair's "Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter," where he emphasizes the importance of looking at statements according to the underlying message.

Newly crowned DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz made a numbers claim.  PolitiFact fact-checked it.  And we will examine whether PolitiFact made a serious effort to tease out the truth of the underlying message.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

PolitiFact:

"It's the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to who's engaging in Medi-scare," said Wasserman Schultz in an interview on MSNBC on May 25. "The Republicans leading up to the 2010 election actually fabricated what Democrats did to Medicare. In fact, we added 12 years of solvency to Medicare and ensured that it would be better for seniors overall. And what the Republicans have done under Paul Ryan's plan is actually end Medicare as we know it, turn into it into a voucher program. There's no running from that."

Adding solvency?   Add to that making Medicare "better for seniors overall" and we seem to have an underlying message suggesting the PPACA improved Medicare.

PolitiFact found a document from the Medicare Board of Trustees that initially appeared to support Wasserman Schultz's claim of adding 12 years of solvency, solvency meaning that Medicare income (clarification:  plus assets) pays 100 percent of Medicare bills on a yearly basis.

On the other hand, PolitiFact also located a more recent report from the same Medicare Board of Trustees recalculating the extension of solvency down to eight years.  Both reports contained very similar warnings from Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster.  Foster's objections received a one-sentence mention in the following paragraph in PolitiFact's story: (bold emphasis added):

We should note those estimates come with a few warnings. The report itself says that projecting health care costs into the future includes many uncertainties. Additionally, the report doesn’t include changes that Congress will likely make to current law, especially the predictable increases in payments to physicians known as the doc fix. Also, the independent chief actuary for Medicare questioned whether the projected cost savings were realistic.

Saying Foster "questioned" the saving is one way to put it, and arguably softens the blow with ambiguous rhetoric.  Here's how Foster said it (Foster's recommended URL activated by me for the reader's convenience):

The financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range (as a result of the unsustainable reductions in physician payment rates) or the long range (because of the strong likelihood that the statutory reductions in price updates for most categories of Medicare provider services will not be viable). I encourage readers to review the “illustrative alternative” projections that are based on more sustainable assumptions for physician and other Medicare price updates. These projections are available at http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/2011TRAlternativeScenario.pdf.

Foster appears to question the report's projections in the strong sense of flatly challenging their reliability ("do not represented a reasonable expectation") rather than in the softer sense of having doubt the projections will pan out.  The context provided by PolitiFact offers no clue as to which meaning applies, though the subsequent paragraph from the story misleadingly implies Foster intended the softer sense:

But overall, the board of trustees report is an official estimate for the Medicare program, the reports are put together with a consistent, detailed methodology, and its annual reports are usually referred to by both parties.

Since the report is "official," uses a "consistent, detailed methodology" and the results are used by both parties therefore we ignore the fact that the projections are unrealistic.  Welcome to the wonderful world of PolitiFact fact checking.

PolitiFact:

So Wasserman Schultz’s number is off by about a third.

Nevertheless, her overall point, that the Democrats’ health reform law added to the overall solvency of Medicare, is correct. The 2011 report included the same warnings that estimating health care savings for the future is an uncertain process, but it also concluded that the financial outlook for Medicare is "substantially improved as a result of the changes in the Affordable Care Act."

Missing the number "by about a third" represents more kid glove treatment.  If 12 years had been the benchmark, then 8 years would be off by about a third.  Where the benchmark is 8 years, the number 12 is off by half (a 50 percent inflation).

On the bright side, Drobnic Holan does identify a underlying message, albeit a slightly different one than I came up with.  Supposedly Wasserman Schultz's point was the improved  solvency of Medicare.

I'd argue that Drobnic Holan has a weak case, here.  If Medicare simply stopped paying for treatment, it would immediately improve the solvency picture for Medicare since Medicare payroll taxes would continue to roll in while disbursements would cease.  Wasserman Schultz's claim is misleading and empty without her associated claim that Democrats made Medicare "better for seniors overall.  As the preceding illustration showed, merely achieving prolonged solvency does not automatically translate into a Medicare program that is better for seniors overall.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Bill Nelson and provisional ballot rejection

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

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis:

I wonder if Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) knows that the most important aspect of a numbers claim is the underlying message?  Even more so, I wonder if PolitiFact staffers Aaron Sharockman and John Bartosek realize it.

Nelson used the provisional ballot stat to bolster his claim that a Republican bill affecting election procedures targeted women and young people.  That's the way PolitiFact tells the story, anyway.  Good luck finding a quotation from Nelson making that clear.

Trust PolitiFact.

PolitiFact:

Republicans say it's a way to eliminate possible voter fraud. But Democrats like Nelson say it's an (sic) way to suppress the votes of people most likely to change their names (women) and people most likely to move frequently (young people and college students). At a press conference with Democratic state legislators on May 2, Bay News 9 and Central Florida 13 reporter Troy Kinsey asked Nelson what was so wrong with people having to cast a provisional ballot.

"Look at history," Nelson answered. "Look at the provisional ballots in 2008. Fifty-five percent of them were discounted. Fifty-five percent of the people who cast a provisional ballot in the last presidential election -- their vote did not count."

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair says the underlying message is the most important aspect of a numbers claim.  Since history suggests that PolitiFact often fails to bother separating the underlying message from the literal numbers claim, let's pause to evaluate Nelson's statement.

First, we have a literal numbers claim, that 55 percent of provisional ballots--presumably in Florida--were not counted.

Second, though more importantly using Adair's guidelines, Nelson sends the message that having to use a provisional ballot serves to suppress votes.  We can't reasonably presume Nelson to mean he wants illegal votes protected, however.  If we take that course then things like age restrictions on voting likewise count as voter suppression efforts.  Nelson is reasonably taken as talking about suppression of legal votes.

PolitiFact's subsequent assay of the facts shows that Florida's provisional ballots were considered unevenly according to locale.  For example, Broward County rejected 94 percent of its provisional ballots while Duval County rejected a mere 19 percent.  The differences in the numbers prompt quite a few questions, but the PolitiFact assessment is sadly superficial, limited to a quotation of a Pew Center on the States report mentioning some differences in rejection criteria.  PolitiFact offers no suggestions as to the significance of the rejection criteria, moving quickly to focus on the literal numbers claim:

In total, Pew reported that 35,635 Florida voters submitted provisional ballots in the 2008 fall election (.42 percent of the total 8.4 million who cast ballots for president). Of the 35,635 ballots submitted, 17,314 were counted and 18,321 were not counted.

To line that up with Nelson's claim, that means 51.4 percent of the provisional ballots submitted were not counted for one reason or another.

As Nelson could justify rounding to 55 from 52.5, his number represents an inflation of only about 2 percent.  So the literal claim as to the numbers is close, and we can file the figures away to contribute to our evaluation of the PolitiMath theorem of mathematical accuracy.

PolitiFact:

State Department spokesman Chris Cate also provided us with provisional ballot statistics from the 2010 general election. They are worth noting because the percentage of provisional ballots ultimately discounted was cut in half when compared to 2008. In the 2010 fall election, local canvassing boards considered 13,181 provisional ballots. Canvassing boards wound up counting 9,790 of the votes and tossing out 3,391 provisional ballots -- or 25.7 percent of the total number of provisional ballots.

Nelson said that "55 percent of the people who cast a provisional ballot (in Florida) in the last presidential election -- their vote did not count." Two slight clarifications: Nelson is slightly high on the percentage claim, and he fails to note that the percentage of provisional ballots counted improved greatly in 2010. We rate this claim Mostly True.

It is worth noting, or rather emphasizing, that PolitiFact has implicitly detected an underlying message that figures in the final ruling.  After all, if the question was only the percentage of provisional ballots rejected in the 2008 election then the number of provisional ballots rejected in the 2010 election is entirely irrelevant.  Yet PolitiFact justified dropping Nelson from "True" down to "Mostly True" based in part on the 2010 numbers.

PolitiFact's attempt to evaluate the underlying message qualifies as severely underdeveloped, unfortunately.

As noted above, the reasonable version of Nelson's argument hinges on the number of legitimate votes lost as a result of the provisional ballot process.  PolitiFact fails to address the issue--a great yawning hole in the story.  The difference in the percentages of provisional ballot rejection, by itself, means nothing.  What matters is the extent to which the percentages reflect the loss of legitimate votes.  And that's quite the can of worms that PolitiFact leaves untouched.

It is a type of voter fraud to vote in the wrong precinct.

I'll repeat that to give it time to sink in.

It is a type of voter fraud to vote in the wrong precinct.

Precincts exist for a reason.  They are intended to help limit who can vote on what.  New York residents should not vote in Florida elections, for example.  For that reason, one of the statistics bandied about by PolitiFact (quoted from the Pew Center report) caused me some consternation:  "In Broward County, 100 percent of rejected provisional ballots were not counted because they were cast by voters not registered in the state."

Broward, one of Florida's most populous counties, was the one that rejected 94 percent of its provisional ballots (see above).

The Pew report, in truth, provides only a wisp of support for Nelson's underlying argument.  That wisp comes from the fact that poll workers sometimes make mistakes in handling provisional voters and their ballots bold emphasis added):

Finally, more than 27,000 or 6 percent of rejected ballots were disallowed because of various errors, including incomplete provisional ballot envelopes, missing or non-matching signatures on the provisional ballot applications, incomplete applications, and envelopes that contained no provisional ballots. While a number of these errors were likely committed by voters themselves, some were the result of administrative problems at the polls.

That 27,000 was a national figure, by the way.

It simply isn't clear, contrary to Nelson's argument, that rejecting provisional ballots is a bad thing.  We don't want New York residents voting in Florida even if they are women or college students.  Nor do we want to make it easy for people to vote in the wrong precinct.

Nelson's underlying argument is a red herring offered with PolitiFact's tacit approval.  The vast majority of rejected provisional ballots get rejected for good reason.  And for some reason PolitiFact did not seem to think it was important to Nelson's argument.

Go figure.



The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F


Afters:

It has been argued that provisional ballots should count as legitimate votes to the extent that the votes align with the choices available in a given precinct.  All Florida precincts vote for governor of the state, for example.  While the suggestion addresses, at least partly, the problem of fixing elections with imported votes, it produces an odd result.  Why should voters using the provisional ballot carry a privilege unavailable to voters who turned up at the correct precinct?

Bottom line, this controversy underscores the difference between the Republican and Democrat views of the voting process.  Republicans tend to try to restrict voting to those with at least some qualifications.  Democrats tend to want as many votes cast as possible.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Eric Eisnaugle and Mickey Mouse's voter registration

Bias 
Any trend in the collection, analysis, interpretation, publication or review of data that can lead to conclusions that are systematically different from the truth.
--J. A. Last, "A dictionary of epidemiology"

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

Sharockman and Bartosek have collaborated on a sensational example of selection bias.  Let's observe their method as they quote a series of claims by Florida state representative Eric Eisnaugle:

"We have seen allegations of fraud, (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) investigations. (We have seen) falsifying of hundreds of registrations, including the registration of an actor who was already deceased at the time. In another case, Mickey Mouse was registered to vote.

"In yet another case, hundreds or thousands ... of students were registered to vote without their knowledge after they simply signed a petition, having no idea that their information was then going to be turned around and used to register their names on the voter rolls here in Florida."

The claims are:

• a deceased actor had a voter registration application falsified
• a cartoon rodent was registered to vote
• signers of a petition were registered to vote without their knowledge

As a matter of stated policy, PolitiFact tries to separate claims and grade them individually.  PolitiFact will presumably grade each of the claims separately.  Or maybe not so much:

Eisnaugle made three different fraud claims, and we plan to touch on each in this fact check to see if they're true. But for the sake of the Truth-O-Meter, we're going to home in on the line that stuck out because of the absurdity of it, if true: "Mickey Mouse was registered to vote."

PolitiFact chose the most potentially absurd of the three claims to position the needle of the "Truth-O-Meter."

What about the claims that don't count on the "Truth-O-Meter"?

PolitiFact:

The group workers turned in 1,400 cards, of which 888 were found to be fraudulent. Included among the fraudulent voter applications -- deceased actor Paul Newman.

That one sounds true.

PolitiFact:

The workers would have the students sign a petition to legalize marijuana or a petition urging stiffer sentences for child abusers. Then, workers would have students unknowingly fill out a second form registering them to vote as Republicans.

The claim about a third-party group registering students surreptitiously also sounds true.  Eisnaugle's not bad on the Meatloaf-O-Meter, even if the Mickey Mouse claim doesn't pan out.

And what of the Mickey Mouse claim?  Was Walt Disney's signature creation registered to vote in Florida?

It comes down to the meaning of "registered to vote."

When I read the PolitiFact story, I took "registered to vote" to mean that Mickey was eligible to walk up on election day, had he desired, and cast his vote.  Was my view prejudiced by the accompanying story?  Could be.  I can't say for sure.  What I do know is that when I listed to Eisnaugle speak, I took him to mean that Mickey had been registered in the same sense that Paul Newman had been registered--via the creation of a fraudulent voter registration application.

I encourage readers to conduct their own tests.  Download the video by clicking here and watch Eisnaugle speak at about the 2:28 mark (props to PolitiFact for providing the link even if the alternate interpretation was never considered in the story).

The context supports the interpretation scorned by PolitiFact.  All of it surrounding the Mickey Mouse example concerns the actions of third-party registration groups.

PolitiFact did not address the comments of Lyndsey Cruley, spokeswoman for Florida's House Republicans:

"In sum, although Rep. Eisnaugle’s remarks could be interpreted, if taken out of context, in two different ways, he clearly intended to demonstrate that some third-party registration organizations have committed fraudulent actions here in Florida."

Cruley's explanation fits the facts.  Why wouldn't PolitiFact acknowledge the point?

And if PolitiFact is narrowly focused on the truth of the potentially absurd registration of Mickey Mouse, then why does PolitiFact editorialize regarding the bill Eisnaugle was extolling?

PolitiFact:

What's worth noting is that, in all three stories Eisnaugle cited, the fraud was exposed. The only real impact was that students in 2004 were registered as Republicans when they wanted to be registered as something else. It's also worth noting that it's unclear how HB 1355 -- had it been part of election law -- would have altered any of the above three scenarios.

I suppose Eisnaugle should have used examples of unexposed fraud.  Though how he would know about unexposed fraud ought to cause its own set of suspicions.  That, in fact, is one of the reasons why bills such as the one in question may prove helpful.  Our system makes it pretty easy to hide fraud.  For example, felons may have illegally voted in Florida's elections.  How does one detect it other than by catching them in the act?

In the end, PolitiFact's editorializing misses the mark.  Eisnaugle did not claim that the examples he cited would have been altered with the bill in effect.  He cited the claim to silence the complaint that no problem with election fraud exists in Florida.


The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Flunk factors:  Ignoring the obvious charitable interpretation of Eisnaugle's statement, editorializing about Eisnaugle's point while disclaiming interest in Eisnaugle's point (not to mention missing the latter).  The selection bias problem is not specific to Sharockman and Bartosek.  That is a systemic problem.


Afters:

The insidious effects of the type of selection bias found in this PolitiFact story have their full effect when PolitiFact encourages readers to look at the collected statements about a person in order to develop an impression about the person.  Using Eisnaugle as an example, the reader of Eisnaugle's PolitiFact "report card" (they actually call it that!) would see a lone "False" rating.  Yet if PolitiFact had chosen either of the other two statements to rate, Eisnaugle would have a lone "True" rating.  Or if PolitiFact had rated all three, Eisnaugle could expect to have two "True" ratings and one "False" rating.

What good is a grade point average created under these types of conditions?

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Grover Norquist and half of something

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

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

This item immediately caught my attention because of the ambiguity.  What does Grover Norquist's statement mean?  What was the original context?  PolitiFact seemed to figure it out easily and quickly:

"FYI," he wrote. "Withheld union dues fund half of Dem (Democratic) campaigns in Florida."

That's an awfully big number. So, FYI, we decided to check it out.

Is it "an awfully big number"?

On its face, Norquist's statement appears to refer to half the total number of political campaigns of Democrats in Florida.  For some as-yet-unknown reason, PolitiFact takes it to mean that withheld union dues provide half the funding for all Democratic campaigns in Florida.

The difference in those two understandings is very substantial.  Use the wrong understanding and the wrong fact gets checked.

Astonishingly (or not, if you follow PolitiFact like I do), once PolitiFact failed to hear back from Norquist or his spokesperson, PolitiFact simply assumed that he was talking about withheld union dues providing half the funding for all Democratic political campaigns in Florida.

Let it be noted that even if those deductions provide every penny of Florida Democratic campaign funds, Norquist is not going to earn a "True" rating simply because his statement could easily represent the idea that at least some funding for half the total number of Democratic political campaigns in Florida came from union dues withheld from paychecks.  PolitiFact tends to penalize when statements lend themselves to misunderstanding.

The subsequent fact check goes out of its way to cut Norquist break after break, for example by dealing with all union contributions to  Democratic campaigns in Florida rather than those that came from paycheck deductions.  No charitable technique (aside from the discarded technique of charitable interpretation) makes the PolitiFact understanding of Norquist remotely accurate.

Apparently it never occurred to the team responsible for the story that Norquist's statement was amenable to a different interpretation than the one they gave it.  Moreover, Norquist's wording apparently seemed to them a completely appropriate way to describe a scenario where half of funding of Democratic campaigns in Florida came from withheld union dues.  They don't even bother paraphrasing it into greater clarity (yellow highlights added):

In both cases, not chump change. But hardly half of what the candidates raised.

Norquist said union dues fund half of Democratic campaigns in Florida. While unions predominantly donate to Democrats, according to research from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, there's no evidence union dues fund anywhere close to half of state Democratic campaigns.

I guess it depends on what "half of state Democratic campaigns" means.

This claim is way off. We rate it Pants on Fire!

Most likely PolitiFact's interpretation of the claim is off by a mile, and even if it doesn't plainly mean something other than what the PolitiFact team thinks it does it is ambiguous to the point that assuming the meaning for purposes of a fact check is inadvisable/foolhardy.

This is yet another flub that is extremely difficult to understand apart from echo-chamber institutional bias at PolitiFact.  Nobody thought the statement might be talking about something other than half of all the funds received by Democratic Party campaigns?

It's kind of hard to believe.


The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Journalists reporting badly.

Afters:

Took a stab at doing the fact check my way (based on the most natural understanding of Norquist's claim).

 I looked for matches between campaign contributors and the state of Florida's list of agencies permitted to accept funds withheld from paychecks with an exclusive emphasis on public employee unions.

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 (Florida): Rick Scott and private sector Stimulus jobs

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

The issue:

The fact checkers:

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


Analysis:

What did Rick Scott say, exactly?


Find the full transcript in the Afters section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The grades:

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

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

Afters:

My full transcript of the video.

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

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

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

RS:
Hold on for a second (inaudible).

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

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

SPT/MH
OK.

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

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

John Bartosek responds

Yesterday I sent an e-mail query to PolitiFact, intended for the e-mail boxes of editor John Bartosek and writer-researcher Lukas Pleva.

I asked for the reason why PolitiFact, given its non-partisan nature, would focus on Rep. Alan Grayson's claim that the U.S. ranks No. 50 in life expectancy worldwide rather than the adjacent claims that the U.S. ranks "just below" Albania and ranks "dead last" in math test scores (background and text of my message).

Bartosek's prompt reply arrived in my e-mail box at 9:39 a.m. EDT.

Fascinating, to borrow a line from Mr. Spock:

Thank you for your recent note about PolitiFact. I'm happy to give you some background on how we work. We focus on a single statement, as often as we can, so that we're making a ruling on only one comment at a time. We think that helps keep us focused and makes things clear. We have, in the past, tackled various education issues, including the state's high school graduation rate being below the national average (True), the state being 50th in education spending (Half True), and Florida teachers being paid $5,000 below national average (Mostly True). It wasn't bias in not picking the comment about math ranking, it was simply the chance to look at another topic (health care) that we hadn't touched on lately.

Bartosek wasn't done, but I need to cut in.  Deciding to make the story about one part of Grayson's comment instead of about another part of the same comment is selection bias by definition.  Whether or not it represents a political bias in addition remains an open question, though we now have Bartosek on record denying the latter type of bias occurred.

Bartosek's assertion that PolitiFact deals with one claim at a time was ridiculous on its face.  I've run across numerous counterexamples, and I sent a couple of them to him in my e-mail reply.

Note that through this point Bartosek has sought to excuse ignoring Grayson's comment about that math ranking.  What about "just below Albania"?  That claim is part of Grayson's statement about U.S. life expectancy and thus, according to Bartosek, on the subject of "health care."  Bartosek tackles that next:

I think Rep. Grayson's comment about Albania was an example of his bigger point about the U.S. ranking worldwide, and we chose to focus on that broader point, rather than writing just about Albania. (Just FYI, the U.S. came in just above Albania in both the 2009 and 2010 CIA Factbook rankings, meaning our life expectancy is slightly higher than that country. The difference is very small.)

This paragraph from Bartosek is funnier every time I read it.

Undoubtedly, Grayson's comment about Albania was an example of his bigger point about the U.S. ranking worldwide.  But it was wrong!  And that fact got swept under the rug!  Bartosek then says that the decision was made to focus on the broader point rather than write "just about Albania."  But what prevents focusing on the broader point while also setting the record straight about Albania falling consistently below the United States in the rankings? 

As for Bartosek's "FYI," the CIA Factbook provides the best case for Albania ranking close to the U.S. in life expectancy.  The other two sources cited in the story told a different story, and Bartosek's claim about the 2009 CIA Factbook remains open to question.  The writer, Lukas Pleva used Wikipedia as a secondary source rather than going to the CIA Factbook itself.  This alternative source tells a different story and which is supported by the published version of the CIA Factbook remains an open question.

"The difference is very small."  Right, but the difference is very small in both directions.  Take the difference in the rankings published by the Population Reference Bureau (a source cited in the PolitiFact story) between Albania (No. 59, avg. 75 yrs) and the U.S. (No. 45, avg. 78 years) and add it to the U.S. total.  Average life expectancy of 81 years would put the U.S. up in the neighborhood of Canada (No. 15, avg. 81 years).

Even for the Wikipedia version of the 2009 CIA Factbook figures most favorable to Grayson, the U.S. could hop from No. 50 to No. 47 based merely on the difference (.15 years) with Albania:

Though it appears possible on its face that the United States could make up the difference with No. 1 simply by a change in the national diet, PolitiFact justifies the focus of the story because it supposedly concerns health care.

Sure, not much separates the U.S. from Albania in years of life expectancy.  But not much more than what separates the U.S. from Albania separates the U.S. from a top 10 ranking, all the cited sources considered.

Bartosek's response does little to dispel the appearance of political bias.  On the contrary, it offers evidence of a considered selection bias with possible roots in political bias.  In addition, the claim that PolitiFact sticks with one subject "as often as we can" is hard to swallow given the contradictory evidence.  "(A)s often as we can" apparently boils down to subjective news judgment and provides an avenue for the influence of political bias.

As I've said often in the past, I do not believe that PolitiFact staffers intentionally inject their political bias into their work.  They simply take inadequate precautions against that occurrence.


Afters

I decided early not to use the full text of my e-mail reply to Bartosek in this post.  That decision had nothing to do with my leaving out a "the" near the end of my message:

The average reader has no conception that a fact checking outfit will ignore the truth values for dubious adjacent claims merely to help ensure that [the] topic of health care (?) gets its due.

That's not to rule out the existence of other typos I may have missed on review.

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: