PolitiFlub: Effortless promise-keeping by the president

Sometimes I can't believe my eyes when I read various PolitiFact stories.

Today provided a great example. PolitiFact rated as "Promise Kept" President Obama's pledge to require 10 percent of U.S. electicity is comes from renewable energy sources by 2012:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012."

PolitiFacter Catharine Richert updated the item in 2009, noting that the House version of the cap and trade bill might end up fulfilling the president's promise.

Which brings us to 2011 and a new update by intern David G. Taylor.

Taylor informs us that the president has kept his promise.  If that seems against all odds given the eventual fate of any and all cap and trade bills recently, hang on for Taylor's explanation:

We spoke with the Christina Kielich of the U.S. Department of Energy press office. She told us that the United States receives approximately 11 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. This breaks down to about 6 percent from hydroelectricity, 3 percent from wind, and approximately 1% each from solar, biomass, and geothermal. Thus, in 2011 - one year head of Obama"s promise, the United States has already reached more than the 10 percent renewable level.

Obama kept his 10 percent promise because the U.S. exceeded 10 percent in fact.

In case it isn't clear what is going on here, Taylor is substituting a new promise for the old promise.  The old promise was that the president would require 10 percent of U.S. energy to come from renewable sources.  The new promise is that the U.S. will produce at least 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources.  The latter promise is a tad like my personal promise that the sun will come up tomorrow.  When the sun appears, my promise is kept.  Did I do anything to help it along?  Not at all.

As bad as it would be to credit the president with keeping a promise which required nothing of him, the real problem stems from the fact that Obama's promise was one of action.  He would establish a requirement.  Taylor's story provides no evidence of the establishment of any sort of requirement.

The promise was not kept, yet PolitiFact counts it otherwise.


Afters:

This is at least the second time that PolitiFact editors have failed interns by not catching fairly obvious flaws in their stories.  The other I have in mind was Lukas Pleva.  Both interns are doubtless talented otherwise the plum internship opportunity would not fall within their respective grasps.  Both deserve better from PolitiFact.

As both Taylor and Pleva doubtless have too much class to blast their gift-horse to its teeth, I'll be happy to do so on their behalf from my less-beholden position:  PolitiFact, you blew it and you've harmed these interns with your lapse in oversight.

Grading PolitiFact: Tim Pawlenty and the Iowa Marriage Pledge or something

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:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor


Analysis:

This piece by PolitiFact serves well to illustrate the liberal bias of the media with respect to social issues.

PolitiFact:

During a July 10, 2011, appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty about the origins of homosexuality.

So far, so good.  The origins of homosexuality constituted the topic.  And PolitiFact delivered in presenting Pawlenty's remarks in the company of their surrounding context:

MR. GREGORY:  Let me ask you about social policy.  You've notably said that you're a big fan of Lady Gaga, and even the song "Born This Way." There's a lot of debate about a gay marriage pledge in Iowa.  And related to that, I wonder, do you agree with some of those who are behind that, that being gay is a choice?

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, I have two teenage daughters who listen to Lady Gaga, so I'm subjected to it.  And it has some good qualities to it.  But as to, as to gay marriage, I'm in support of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman.  I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits and public employment as traditional couples.  And so this is an issue in Iowa and across the whole country.  But I've stood in favor or traditional marriage and traditional relationships in that regard.

MR. GREGORY:  Is being gay a choice?

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, the science in that regard is in dispute.  I mean, the scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral...

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

GOV. PAWLENTY:  ...of if it's partly genetic.

MR. GREGORY:  What do you think?

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.

MR. GREGORY:  So you, you think it's not a choice.

GOV. PAWLENTY:  Well, there is no...

MR. GREGORY:  That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way.

GOV. PAWLENTY:  There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic.  We don't know that.  So we don't know to what extent, you know, it's behavioral, and that's something that's been debated by scientists for a long time.  But as I understand the science, there's no current conclusion that it's genetic.

MSNBC transcript

PolitiFact reproduced as much of the context as I provided above, and that's commendable.  Unfortunately, the PolitiFact team proceeded to ignore the context for purposes of the fact check.

Before examining PolitiFact's failures in that respect, however, we will benefit from teasing apart David Gregory's interview questions along with Pawlenty's responses.

Note that Gregory asks his initial question in this section by saying it relates to the Iowa marriage pledge.  The marriage pledge has nothing in it about homosexuals choosing their orientation.  If Pawlenty takes Gregory seriously that his question relates to the marriage pledge then the question does not have to do with homosexuals choosing their sexual orientation.

Gregory also stipulates that "some" of those behind the marriage pledge think homosexuality is a choice, and that is the immediate lead-in as he asks Pawlenty if he agrees with those unnamed persons.  But if Gregory means to ask that question then it relates to the marriage pledge only tangentially.  That would mean that Gregory told a half-truth in saying his question related to the marriage pledge.

As a result, Pawlenty finds himself in the position of trying to figure out what Gregory is really asking him.  Does the question relate directly to the marriage pledge or is Gregory asking him say whether he thinks people choose their sexual orientation?

In the end, Pawlenty's answer is about as clear as Gregory's question.  But PolitiFact never bothers with the ambiguity even though some of their expert sources point it out:

...Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council -- a leading think tank for social conservatives -- agreed with the distinction between orientation and behavior. He suggested that fuzzy definitions of "sexual orientation" explain why the two camps sometimes talk past each other.

"Part of the problem is that the term ‘sexual orientation’ is somewhat ambiguous," Sprigg said. He suggests that it is sometimes used to cover three separate elements -- attractions, behaviors and self-identification.

"What I generally say is that I don‘t believe that same-sex attractions are a choice, but behaviors and self-identification are," he said. "If Pawlenty had wanted to be more subtle, he could have asked Gregory what he meant" by being gay.

Indeed, Gregory's question was ambiguous.  And Pawlenty compounded the problem with his reference to the potential "behavioral" origins of homosexual orientation.

In addition to confusing his question by claiming it related to the Iowa marriage pledge, Gregory repeatedly presented Pawlenty with a false dilemma.  Science and logic do not force any choice between genetics and choice with respect to homosexual orientation.  The choice, at worst, is between genetics and other factors such as environment and personal choice.  This is not to say, as Pawlenty points out, that genetics can't play a role that is less than absolute in determining sexual orientation.

I don't know what Pawlenty had in mind when he talked of "behavioral" factors.  PolitiFact assumed he meant that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.  Such assumptions are not the stuff of objective journalism.  The objective journalist tries to clear up the ambiguity in order to render a judgment as to the facts.  Failing that, the objective journalist declines to rule on the facts.

We end up with a situation where Gregory failed in his role as a journalist to obtain an unambiguous answer to his question.  And PolitiFact pretended otherwise.

We're not fact checking whether being gay is a choice, but whether scientists are "in dispute" over whether it is or is not.

Pawlenty repeatedly emphasized the dispute over whether homosexual orientation arises from genetics.  Despite his references to "behavioral" factors it simply isn't clear that Pawlenty buys the dilemma sold to him by Gregory.

The fact check from this juncture probably misses the point.  One can take Pawlenty out of context to interpret him as saying that scientist are in dispute whether homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.  But considering the context, Pawlenty is more likely saying that scientists dispute the role of genetics in determining sexual orientation.

If one supposed that journalists serve their ideological agenda, this case fits right in.  David Gregory hammers Pawlenty with a false dilemma.  Pawlenty resists the false dilemma but approaches the appearance of accepting it through his choice (two times) of the term "behavioral."  PolitiFact jumps on the ambiguity and has Pawlenty claiming that scientists dispute whether homosexual orientation is a choice.

The context argues against PolitiFact.  PolitiFact has again sacrificed its principles to its ideology.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Martha Hamilton:  F

Try to stick to objective judgment next time, you two.  Do some follow up with the speaker when ambiguity lingers.


Afters:

David Gregory:  F

Objective journalists avoid confronting their interview subjects with questions that represent a false dilemma.

Grading PolitiFact: Sarah Palin and snack inflation

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:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Martha Hamilton:  editor

Analysis:

During her recent interview with Newsweek, definite maybe Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin talked inflation.  And PolitiFact was there:

The article explained that Palin has "become conversant on the subject of quantitative easing" -- a Federal Reserve bond-buying plan. The effort was designed to bolster a weak economy, but critics say it risks encouraging inflation. (We rated her on a related statement last November.)

In the July 10, 2011 Newsweek interview, Palin illustrated the issue with an anecdote about her husband: "I was ticked off at Todd yesterday," she said. "He walks into a gas station as we’re driving over from Minnesota. He buys a Slim Jim—we’re always eating that jerky stuff—for $2.69. I said, 'Todd, those used to be 99 cents, just recently!' And he says, 'Man, the dollar’s worth nothing anymore.' A jug of milk and a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs—every time I walk into that grocery store, a couple of pennies more."

Indeed, it's about inflation.  What fact are we checking, PolitiFact?

A reader asked us to look into whether Slim Jims have, in fact, been swept up in a huge inflationary spiral recently.

Uh, what?  A reader decided which fact to check?

We’ll start by noting that Palin used an anecdote to draw broader conclusions. That’s not necessarily a no-no, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. (Or, perhaps, 430 mg of salt, the amount of sodium in a 0.97-ounce original Slim Jim.) Even if Palin’s anecdote is true, it may not support her larger points about food inflation and the dangers thereof.

I encourage the reader to go back and review Palin's statement.  Do it.  I'll wait.

Done?  Good.  It isn't at all necessary to take Palin's Slim Jim story as an illustration of inflation.  The main reason for doing that, in fact, comes from context provided by the Newsweek reporter.  The reporter appears to have provided a skewed take on Palin's words.

Think about the story seriously for a moment.  She's mad at her husband.  That has a great deal to do with inflation, right?  Even though the pair eats "that jerky stuff" fairly routinely, Palin doesn't realize that prices vary depending on where the purchase is made?  Seriously?  I suppose that could fit with a preconceived narrative that Palin is a dunce, but bear with me.  The key, I think, is the punch line the story, provided by Todd Palin.

That's right.  I said punch line.

I think the story is pretty obviously humorous.  Sarah's mad at Todd and gets on him for spending over two dollars for a Slim Jim.  The high price is plausible, as the PolitiFact story appears to allow.  Todd's excuse?  The shrinking dollar.  The story was probably intended as a humorous and personal way to get to Palin's observations about inflation.  Not Slim Jim prices, but the upward creep for basics like milk, bread and eggs.  I count it as a misinterpretation to think Palin was suggesting the high price Mr. Palin paid for his Slim Jim snack was representative of food inflation.

But let's look at Slim Jim prices anyway:

"Our iconic Slim Jim Giant Sticks are priced around $1.30," Paulsen said.

That seems up a bit from the traditional $0.99 price.

Why would that be?

ConAgra and other food producers have had to raise prices as higher costs for ingredients and other raw materials cut into profits. This quarter, the company's consumer foods segment saw costs rise 9 percent.

ConAgra said it expects higher costs to remain a challenge and will raise prices further. The company said those moves will begin to pay off in the second half of the year.

"We have made it crystal-clear that we are serious about increasing our net pricing to help mitigate this much higher input cost inflation," ConAgra CEO Gary Rodkin told investors Thursday. "We have made it very clear that we are not going to go backwards on pricing and if that means that we need to make some modest tradeoff on the volume in the near term, we are willing to do that."

That item was dated toward the middle of last month.  ConAgra makes the Slim Jim product line.

Rewind:

Teresa Paulsen, a ConAgra spokeswoman, said that "we admire Mr. Palin’s taste and appreciate his support," but added that "we haven’t raised the price significantly on any Slim Jim products."

Huh.  Do you think we're getting the whole story from Paulsen?

ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg’s and Kraft recently raised prices for many of their wares. In December ConAgra, which makes Slim Jim meat snacks, among other delicacies, reported a 16% decline in second-quarter profits. Like other food makers, ConAgra is experimenting with smaller packages sold at the same price.

Jan 20, 2011

It's surprisingly hard to pin down the suggested retail price history for Slim Jim snacks.  But it does appear that Slim Jim has adjusted prices upward and that Paulsen weasels a bit on the term "significantly"--perhaps using it relative to the price increase implied by an uncharitable interpretation of Palin's story.

Cut to the bottom line:  The difference between 99 cents and $2.69 need not represent an inflationary difference for Palin's husband's comment about the weak dollar.  From there the story segues to serious talk of inflation on everyday items.  The evidence suggests that inflation has affected the prices of Slim Jim products, the comments of its spokesperson notwithstanding.

Not too surprisingly, PolitiFact fails to see i that way:

So where does this leave us? Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Palins are correct and they recently paid two and a half times more for a Slim Jim than they used to. If that’s the case, it wasn’t because ConAgra raised the suggested price. It could have been because they bought from a particularly expensive retailer, or they could have been choosing a different and more expensive flavor of Slim Jim without realizing it.

Rather, if the Palins paid what they claimed for a Slim Jim it wasn't entirely because of a rise in the suggested retail price.  It is likely that ConAgra has increased the price during the past year.  Thus, Palin's statement would be partly true and in line with PolitiFact's description of its "Barely True" rating or the more recent flavor of its "Half True" rating--especially since the underlying point about rising food costs is accurate.

Again, PolitiFact doesn't see it that way:

Still, even if Todd Palin paid more for his snack food fix, it doesn’t support Sarah Palin’s argument that food prices are skyrocketing. Food prices -- an always-volatile sector -- are indeed going up, and that may or may not be a worry for the longer term. However, food prices are not rising by anything approaching 169 percent. Her anecdote offers spice, but not a lot of meat. We rate it False.

PolitiFact sees an argument implied in Palin's anecdote.  PolitiFact ignores alternate interpretations such as the one I've suggested that make the implied argument irrelevant to Palin's point.

PolitiFact's approach is hardly objective.  Rather, it fits the pattern often seen in skeptical arguments where a statement is attacked according to its weakest interpretation--a form of the straw man fallacy.

In this case I cheerfully admit that I do not know for sure what Palin intended to say.  The evidence, in conjunction with the principle of charitable interpretation, suggests the explanation I put forward.  The best practice for fact checking, I believe, will always involve consideration of a plausible charitable interpretation along with offering the benefit of the doubt.  It would be just as consistent, admittedly, to always opt for the uncharitable interpretation.  PolitiFact chooses the mushy middle ground, setting itself up again to having its ratings swayed by the subjectivity of its team members.  Bottom line, the "False" rating can only stand by unfairly ignoring Palin's underlying point.  Food prices are going up because of inflation.

The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Martha Hamilton:  F

The failing grades follow from the failure to employ the principle of charitable interpretation along with an apparent failure to research product pricing by ConAgra (other than perhaps accepting a spokesperson's ambiguous statement as an assurance that Slim Jim prices did not change).  Slim Jim prices probably went up during the past year, and that information should have appeared in the story.

In this case, PolitiFact appeared to go along with the agenda of the reader who asked for the fact check.  The person requesting the fact check shalt not narrow the focus to the point of excluding the point the person was trying to make, or else PolitiFact is compromising its standards (see epigraph above).

Afters:

The price of milk, graphically presented.

"Shadowy" Crossroads GPS PAC

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) recently sent me a message warning me about an ad campaign rolled out by the Crossroads GPS PAC.  Crossroads GPS is Karl Rove's baby.  You know, Darth Vader.  That makes Crossroads GPS a sort of Luke Skywalker, I suppose.

Anyhow, here's the ad:




And here's what Nelson says about it:

As part of a series of $20-million in TV attack ads, I have been targeted by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. Their ad is a total distortion of my record. But I'm trusting Floridians will see this attack for what it is: rubbish paid for by a shadowy, partisan front group funded by just a handful of billionaires.

"Total distortion."  Hmmm.  It's a pity Nelson wasn't more specific.  Most if not all the factoids in the ad appear plainly true at first blush.  Nelson might have a point that the conclusions drawn from the factoids paint him in an unnecessarily negative light.  But isn't Nelson doing the same thing or worse by calling the ad a "total distortion"?

This much is true, at least:  Nelson's would-be Republican replacement will serve as a more fiscally restrained member of the Senate than Nelson.  "Total distortion" that, Mr. Nelson.

Bwahahahaha

Yes, I'm on record describing Paul Krugman (economist, New York Times op-ed hack) as a partisan hack.  Sorry for any redundancy.

If we need another reminder as to why that epithet sticks, check out the Kaus Files (at the Daily Caller):

Paul Krugman now says that some kinds of Keynesian stimulus spending just aren’t as effective as other kinds. Specifically, he suggests, aid to state and local governments (to enable them to keep government workers in their jobs) is a sort of second-class stimulus:

So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. [E.A.]

Hmm. That’s not what I remember him saying back in 2009. In 2009, if I remember right, job-preserving aid to state and local governments was almost the most important thing in the world.

What.  A.  Great.  Economist.

Be sure to follow the link and read Kaus' post in its entirety, as it provides the evidence in support of the finding that Krugman reversed himself.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

Grading PolitiFact (Virginia): Bob McDonnell and job creation in Texas

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:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Jacob Geiger:  writer, researcher
Warren Fiske:  editor


Analysis:

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia wouldn't mind if his state could emulate the jobs record of Texas.  McDonnell, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, made a recent statement praising Texas on that point.

"Under Gov. Rick Perry’s leadership [Texas] has created more jobs over the last decade than the rest of the states combined," McDonnell wrote.

And PolitiFact was there:

We wondered if Perry’s record on creating jobs matched McDonnell’s claim.

With the fact check identified, it is research time. PolitiFact contacted McDonnell's office for backing information before launching its own survey:

Our research took us down a road traveled by PolitiFact Texas in examining various claims from Perry that most of the jobs created in the U.S. are in the Lone Star State.

PolitiFact Texas has debunked several of these eye-popping claims, noting that they are based on statistics from a minority of states that have had overall job gains in recent years.

Though PolitiFact Virginia mentions "several" claims debunked by PolitiFact Texas, we have but one represented in the list of references.  PolitiFact Texas debunked Governor Perry to the tune of "Half True" in that case, and that story contained a link to another story featuring a claim similar to the current subject where the claim received a "False" rating.

PolitiFact, you see, pays special attention to the words politicians use.  If they say "we created x jobs" it does not necessarily mean net jobs.  And that's misleading.

Unless you're Rick Perry:

"Gov. Rick Perry says Texas has created more than 850,000 jobs, more than the other states combined" ("True")

Or Joe Biden:

"Vice President Joe Biden says more jobs were created in the last year than in all eight years under George Bush" ("MostlyTrue")

Or Mitt Romney:

"Mitt Romney tells CPAC that Canada created more jobs in January than the U.S. did" ("True")

Or Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz says job creation in 2010 on pace to eclipse growth during George W. Bush's entire administration" ("Half True)

You get the idea, after noting that Wasserman Schultz's "Half True" had nothing at all to do with gross job creation as opposed to net job creation.  The fact is that "job creation" is a statistic that we normally take to mean net job creation.  Yet PolitiFact applies an uncharitable interpretation to job creation statements from governors McDonnell and Perry with no apparent justification from the context.

PolitiFact Texas:

Veronica Sanchez Downey, who analyzes data for the commission, said she'd feel comfortable summarizing the commission's conclusion about Texas job gains this way: "Of all the states that gained jobs in the U.S. including the District of Columbia, Texas accounted for" 67.2 percent of the added jobs from November 2007 to November 2008. The 67.2-percent figure reflects adjustments of the data since the initial research.

Perry, of course, didn't say it that way.

Right.  Perry did not mention the term "net" while talking about job gains.  He just talked about job gains, which people tend to understand as net job gains.  That interpretation is so ubiquitous that PolitiFact typically favors it without discussion, as shown by the preceding examples.  So Perry gets "debunked" by making an exception to the normal conventions of English interpretation.

You might get more consistent results using the "Magic 8 Ball" instead of PolitiFact.

Let's get this over with:

Let’s review. 

McDonnell wrote that under Gov. Perry, Texas "has created more jobs over the last decade than the rest of the states combined."

But the Virginia governor used net job numbers. Those are different from job creation figures, which are not compiled by the BLS or other national authority. So using net job numbers and calling them job creation figures is a case of comparing apples to oranges.

We rate McDonnell’s claim Barely True.

It's just too bad for McDonnell that PolitiFact Virginia failed to take note of the several PolitiFact items that treated job creation claims in terms of net jobs, with ratings ranging from as low as "Half True" to as high as "True."

Reply hazy.  Try again.

The grades:

Jacob Geiger:  F
Warren Fiske:  F

Fiske and Geiger had the opportunity to notice PolitiFact's disgraceful inconsistency in its treatment of job creation claims.  The team somehow failed to notice PolitiFact's history of (appropriately) treating job creation claims as dealing with net job creation where the context warrants taking them that way.  The PolitiFact Virginia team instead zeroed in on a handful of bizarre cases where the obvious intent was ignored.

Afters:

What if we were to look at cases where PolitiFact has ruled on jobs claims and where considering the jobs claims in terms of gross jobs rather than net jobs might have affected the ruling?

Tweaking the PolitiFact machine

Major changes afoot?  PolitiFact asks:

 Should Barely True be changed to Mostly False?

Excuse me while I laugh.

PolitiFact suffers from longstanding problems with selection bias, uneven application of standards and even lapses in basic reporting skills.  And editor Bill Adair is focused on changing "Barely True" to "Mostly False"?

Adair's story explaining PolitiFact's consideration of the change provides yet more evidence of the organization's difficulty in following its own standards.  PolitiFact Ohio graded a statement by a conservative group "Barely True."  The group reacted with a story proclaiming that PolitiFact had rated its claim true.  So PolitiFact rated that claim "Pants on Fire."

But according to PolitiFact's rating system--if we pretend for a moment that it's supposed to be an objective system and not a facade for subjective declarations--there was an element of truth to the conservative group's original claim, so it follows that an element of truth existed in the second claim as well.

After hearing so many complaints about Barely True over the years, that episode was a key moment in our thinking about Barely True. We think it might be time for a change.

My take:  PolitiFact keeps receiving messages from its predominantly liberal readership expressing various forms of outrage over "Barely True" claims, including various repetitions of the claim that "Barely True" means "Mostly False."  So PolitiFact mulls the change as a sop to its liberal audience.

It's ridiculous.  PolitiFact could call the category "Penfold" and it shouldn't matter.  The key to the proper understanding of the ratings emerges from the definitions, not from the terms themselves.  And PolitiFact can't keep the definitions straight to begin with, so this proposed cosmetic change amounts to a farce.

If you want to make PolitiFact better, Mr. Adair, then start with an objectively justifiable rating system and follow that up with consistent application of the system.

If, on the other hand, you want to play to your predominantly liberal audience then changing "Barely True" to "Mostly False" stands as a fine idea.  Go for it.

PolitiFact and lessons unlearned: the "Truth Index"

PolitiFact continues to focus on marketing at the expense of quality, with the rollout of the "Truth Index" serving as the latest example.

PolitiFact's description (by editor Bill Adair):

An average of all Truth-O-Meter rulings

To calculate the Index, we use the Truth-O-Meter ratings from our national and state sites for the prior seven days. We chose seven days to get a larger sample and avoid the dramatic swings that would occur if it were based on one day.

It's hard to imagine that even if PolitiFact controlled for selection bias that the "Truth Index" would carry any value at all other than entertainment.  Is the index supposed to show trends in the truthfulness of politicians and others who receive the PolitiFact treatment?  Again, even given appropriate controls on the selection of statements, the index probably means absolutely nothing in terms of daily trends.  We might hypothesize that as politicians increase their awareness of the popularity of fact checking sites that they would develop a less cavalier attitude toward their political speech.  But that isn't something that one would measure from day to day with a running average, even one softened using a period of seven days.

In terms of fact checking, the "Truth Index" is nonsense.  In terms of marketing perhaps it makes sense.

This is why I call PolitiFact the Fox News of fact checking:  They favor style over substance in search of ratings.

PolitiFlub: Obama & tax rates on hedge fund managers, Pt. 2

The flub (yellow highlights added):

We realize that Obama offered two different standards -- the lowest rates ever, and the lowest since the 1950s. We’ve decided to use the latter standard -- "since the 1950s" -- because the data is more consistent and easily accessible. (With one exception to fund the Civil War, there was no federal taxation prior to 1913.)

Yes, it's snarky to turn PolitiFact's own poor approach to fact checking against it.  PolitiFact earned such treatment, however.

There was, in fact, federal taxation prior to 1913 apart from a wartime exception during the Civil War:

From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
infoplease.com

Of course, folks at PolitiFact almost certainly meant "federal tax on income" rather than "federal taxation," but that's not what they said.  And even if we give PolitiFact the charitable interpretation it so often denies to others, they're leaving out a few things:

[8] In 1894, another federal income tax was enacted, but it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895, on the ground that it was a direct tax not apportioned among the states by population.

[9] Excise tax rates were increased and new excises ² imposed along with the imposition of an inheritance tax to help finance the Spanish-American War. These excise taxes were mostly repealed by 1902. The low revenue-yielding inheritance tax continued a few years longer.

[10] The Act of 1909 imposed a corporate excise tax of 1% on corporate net income over $5,000. Four years later, the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified on February 25, 1913) provided that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration." 

Congressional Research Service report, hosted at taxhistory.org

PolitiFlub: Obama & tax rates on hedge fund managers

Just a little reminder regarding the way PolitiFact defines its grading system:

True – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
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.
False – The statement is not accurate.
Pants on Fire – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

Not that PolitiFact is entirely consistent (yellow highlights added):

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

BARELY TRUE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

I wonder how much longer they'll let the discrepancy ride?  But on to the point, regarding a rating very recently given to President Obama for the following statement:

"If you're a -- if you are a wealthy CEO or a … hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They're lower than they've been since the 1950s."

The conclusion from the same story:

(W)hen Obama said that "if you're a … wealthy CEO or a … hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are … lower than they've been since the 1950s," he's close: Their tax rates are at or near the lows for the years elapsed since then.

The top marginal income tax rates were lower between 1988 and 1992 than they are today, but otherwise, Obama is right. They were higher for the other years. Meanwhile, the rates that are used to tax carried interest for hedge-fund managers have been at historical lows since 2003. And effective tax rates for high-income earners were either at their lowest since 1960 or very close to their lowest (at least according to the most recent data available). On balance, we rate Obama’s statement Mostly True.

Think about what PolitiFact just explained.  Obama's statement is not correct in terms of the top marginal tax rate.  Marginal rates "were lower between 1988 and 1992."  And supposedly the effective tax rates on the highest earners were "either at their lowest since 1960 or very close to their lowest."   To verify Obama's claim, PolitiFact chose a study featuring an annualized spot check for "average federal tax rate" which may not even be the same thing as the effective tax rate.  But PolitiFact could have used a Tax Policy Center study of effective tax rates published a few months ago that would have contradicted Obama's claim.

Note that PolitiFact found Obama "Mostly True" on its Truth-O-Meter.

Note again the definition of "Mostly True":  "The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."

So PolitiFact judges that an inaccurate statement is accurate.

Welcome to the wonderful world of PolitiFact fact checking.