PolitiFlub: PolitiFact Wisconsin, the Obama promise and the Janesville GM plant (Updated)

PolitiFact has earned its status as the least-dependable of the stable of left-leaning fact check organizations.  PolitiFact Wisconsin gives us one more sparkling example supporting that judgment with a fact check of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan.

Ryan said President Obama broke a campaign promise to keep the Janesville (Wisc.) plant open.   PolitiFact Wisconsin detected no such promise from Mr. Obama.

 Here's what then-candidate Obama said in February 2008 (bold emphasis added) during a speech in Janesville:

This can be America’s future. I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.

Importantly, Obama opened his speech with references to the plant.  He then sketched his vision of America before mentioning how the Janesville plant could stay open if the government provides support.  In that context, Obama pledged to provide that support.  Does Mr. Obama use the specific term "promise" in his statement?  No, certainly not.  Does he guarantee the plant will remain open?  Again, no.  However, there is little doubt  that every person in Janesville listening to his speech took it as a pledge from the president to work to enact policies to keep the plant open. Mr. Obama did, in fact, pledge to do just that.

PolitiFact Wisconsin located no such pledge.

But it gets worse.  Much worse. PolitiFact builds its conclusion primarily on its claim that the Janesville plant closed before Mr. Obama took office (bold emphasis added):

Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office.

We rate Ryan's statement False.

GM announced the likely permanent closure of the Janesville plant in June of 2008, less than four months after Mr. Obama pledged to work toward an agenda that would keep the plant open for "another hundred years."

So, when is the plant closed?  When it closes for the last time?  When it produces its last GM vehicle?  When the company announces its permanent closure on a particular date?

When President Bush left office, he had provided Chrysler and GM loans to keep them going until the automakers could present restructuring plans to the Obama administration in April.

GM announced the final closing of the Janesville plant in April of 2008, and the final Chevy Tahoe came off the line in December 2008, before Obama took office as president.  On the other hand, the plant stayed open so that GM could build trucks for Isuzu:

The company stopped building SUVs at the plant just before Christmas.

That decision left about 1,200 workers unemployed.At the time GM said a crew would remain to complete an order for Isuzu.

But by June of 2009, while the Obama administration was still negotiating GM's fate and after completing the work for Isuzu, Janesville continued to maintain hope that its plant might reopen:

JANESVILLE (WKOW) -- There is a lot of optimism in Janesville today, after receiving word GM could reopen one of its idle plants to produce new fuel efficient cars, according to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce development.

If the GM restructuring deal brokered by the Obama administration resulted in continued production at GM's plant in Janesville, is there any doubt at all that Obama would receive credit for delivering on a promise?  Especially if the work involved hybrid vehicles?  The opportunity was there for the taking.

Why is so much of this information missing from a fact check?


Update 8/30/2012, 4:15 p.m.:

NPR fills in some of the missing information PolitiFact omitted.



Correction 8/31/2012:  Original version had wrong date for Obama's Janesville speech on first reference:  "Here's what President-elect Obama said in December 2008 (bold emphasis added) during a speech in Janesville:"  That sentence has been made accurate.

Grading PolitiFact (Wisconsin): Al Sharpton and the draconian milk cuts (Updated x2)

We always try to get the original statement in its full context rather than an edited form that appeared in news stories.
--About PolitiFact

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Tom Kertscher:  writer, researcher
Greg Borowski:  editor


Analysis:

MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton made his comments on MSNBC's "Politics Nation," aptly enough.  The transcript (yellow highlights indicate the portion quoted in the PolitiFact story):

SHARPTON: Republican politicians throw around budget numbers like  it`s all some abstract game. But they seem to forget their policies have a devastating impact on real people across the country. In Michigan,  Governor Rick Snyder has signed the law that puts a four-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. That means next month, nearly 41,000 Michigan residents will stop getting welfare aid including nearly 30,000 children. Thousands of innocent impoverished kids, abandoned by the state. In Arizona, a new republican law punishes the families of prison inmates. To help deal with the state`s deficit, the state has begun charging $25 to visit someone in prison. It`s called a quote, "background check fee." But actually goes for maintenance and repairs.

And in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker`s budget cuts means, some kids are going without. One school district is so worried about losing state funding, that has stopped giving milk to elementary school kids during snack time. These are the real government of GOP priorities.

 Aside from some journalistic impropriety, the quotation presents Sharpton's statement reasonably well.

I'll take a moment to pan the journalists for the presentation of the quotation.  PolitiFact lists the MSNBC transcript as the source.  The transcript differs from the version of Sharpton's words used by the writer, Tom Kertscher, and passed on to the reader by the editor, Greg Borowski.    The PolitiFact Wisconsin version cleans up some faulty grammar, including a missing "it," in the MSNBC transcript.  Sharpton may or may not have made his statement the way PolitiFact presented it, but the transcript isn't the source of the quotation if the two differ unless PolitiFact Wisconsin relaxed its stance on the normal journalistic standard for handling quotations.

On with the fact check:

Grading PolitiFact (Wisconsin): Michael Moore and the richest 400

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

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

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Tom Kertscher:  writer, researcher
Greg Borowski:  editor

Analysis:

This item didn't interest me at first.  Usually I know from the subject matter in the title whether I want to fact check the fact checkers.  This time I saw the need after starting to read the story just to obtain a sense of it.

First, Michael Moore's claim, as presented by PolitiFact:

"Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters.

PolitiFact continued the quotation of Moore in the subsequent paragraph, but that continuance failed to capture the context that informs us regarding Moore's underlying point.  Here's the video, followed by a transcript including the expanded context:



Moore (using Moore's transcript with yellow highlights indicating the portions used by PolitiFact; bold and italicized emphasis in the original):

America is not broke.

Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.

Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined.

Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.

Moore has at least one underlying point.  The most obvious is that 400 people have so much money that it demonstrates that America is not broke.  Despite the guidance of PolitiFact's founder, Bill Adair, this fact check will stick with the superficial point rather than the underlying point.

Let's follow the course of Kertscher and Borowski as they continue their literary journey with the guidance system discarded:

Now let’s see if what he asserts -- that 400 Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined" -- is true.

Moore has made other staggering claims about the gap between the nation’s rich and poor. In Capitalism: A Love Story, his 2009 documentary, Moore said "the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."

My reaction to the latter paragraph is approximately that of Vicini upon being told a few details about iocaine powder.

PolitiFact goes on to investigate the embedded link in Moore's text version of his speech ("same wealth") and finds that it says that the poorest 50 percent of Americans had a total wealth greater than that of the richest 400.  While that's not a good sign, PolitiFact adapted to Moore's presentation of secondary evidence:

We were referred to another item on Moore’s website that was posted two days after the Madison speech. It cites more recent figures, for 2009.

So, let’s start again.

In that item, Moore correctly quoted Forbes, which said in a September 2009 article that the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest Americans was $1.27 trillion.

That's a good bit of wealth.  Not as big as the projected federal budget deficit for each of the next two years, but still considerable.

The second part of Moore’s claim -- that the net worth of half of all Americans is less than that of the Forbes 400 -- is more complicated.

Um--it's really only a one-part claim comparing two numbers, and Moore doesn't specify either number.  He's making a simple claim about the relationship between those numbers.  But maybe PolitiFact refers to the secondary evidence at Moore's website rather than to his Madison claim.  Though that source talks about the poorest 60 percent of all Americans rather than 50 percent of all Americans.

Sure enough, PolitiFact ends up investigating the nuts and bolts of Moore's secondary claim and finds it true.  But there's a fairly obvious problem, and it isn't the 10 percentage point difference between 50 percent and 60 percent.  It's the difference between "the bottom 60% of households" and "half of all Americans."

Moore's source, economist Edward Wolff of Bard College and New York University, found that the bottom 60 percent of Americans held 2.3 percent of the nation's net worth.  Moore applied that figure to the nation's total net worth and ended with $1.22 trillion.

PolitiFact reasoned that $1.22 trillion is a lower figure than the $1.27 trillion Forbes figured in the possessions of the richest 400, and further reasoned that the lowest 50 percent could hardly possess more than the lowest 60 percent.

That reasoning is good, so far as it goes, but it doesn't address the problem with Moore's imprecision.  In Madison, Moore did not restrict himself to any particular segment of the U.S. population.  He simply said "half of all Americans combined."

Remember back when PolitiFact paid "close attention to the specific wording of a claim"?  Those were the days.

Contemporary PolitiFact:

(O)ur assessment indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest individuals exceeds the net worth of half of all American households.

Ironically, my assessment using the same numbers indicates that as of 2009, the net worth of half of all American households exceeds the net worth of the nation's 400 wealthiest individuals.

How does this apparently contradictory result obtain?  Simple.  I cherry-pick the half of the American people that Moore didn't cherry-pick.  I take the $53.1 trillion total net worth, subtract the total for the half of Americans Moore used ($1.22 trillion) and then subtract the $1.27 trillion for the top 400 just for good measure.  I end up with half of American households holding a net worth of over $50 trillion.  I then reason that $50 trillion is greater than $1.27 trillion.

A statement that is both true and false at the same time typically fails to qualify as a precise statement.  Moore omits important qualifying language in making his claim, and PolitiFact grants him the most favorable pass on his imprecision by completely ignoring it in favor of charitable interpretation.

As I have often emphasized, I am all in favor of charitable interpretation.  But the practice must be uniform in the context of fact checking in order to avoid bias, and moreover it is appropriate to let the reader know when applying the principle of charitable interpretation.  PolitiFact's statements of standards do not acknowledge the importance of charitable interpretation.  They do emphasize the importance of precise phrasing.  PolitiFact also claims that it pays very close attention to the particular words used in expressing a claim.  Yet that commitment fails to show up in this fact check of Moore.  Likewise absent is an emphasis on Moore's underlying point.


The grades:

Tom Kertscher:  F
Greg Borowski:  F



March 12, 2011:  Changed tense in a few sentences to improve consistency.