Skip to main content

View Diary: PolitiFACT openly admits FACTS are not its focus (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, not really. I think what they're saying, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanAnt, cardinal

    and it seems fairly obvious to me, is that if Obama were to say something like "many more people have jobs thanks to me", it would be a half-truth. Simply, what does or doesn't create jobs in a complex economy like ours can't rest solely with the sitting administration. It would, however, be part true thanks to something like a stimulus plan.

    Which, if I recall, was the standard around here for Bush when he would take credit for anything regarding economics as little as it was.

    I say, fair enough. The president's speech writers ought to vet their corroborating modifiers a little better. A simple "in part, thanks to me" for instance.

    No?

    •  Actually, we don't have to guess at what they are (15+ / 0-)

      saying or might say.  The diarist highlighted the pertinent statement:

      They became less concerned with the hard facts of a statement and more concerned what they perceived was "implicit" meaning of certain statements.

      Politifact says that Obama's claim is 'Half True' because they are reading into it precisely what Obama did not say, hence they see it 'implicitly'.  

      Put another way, they made that part up.

      Proud to be a Truth Vigilante

      by Calvino Partigiani on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:36:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blah, I stand by my point. (0+ / 0-)

        I think they have the right and obligation to parse everything the president, any president, says.

        Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True.

        They corrected themselves. If this had been Bush, or Romney from the scary future, people here would be jumping all over them for turning it into a "Mostly True".

        •  That statement you quote from Politifact (9+ / 0-)

          makes them seem even worse to me that I had thought.  In fact it is nonsensical:

          [Obama] was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed

          See that?  Now Politifact claims that Obama is still claiming a link between his policies and job creation.  He's just not making it as 'strongly' as they believed.

          So now his statement is 'Mostly True'?  Bizarre.

          And just to be sure we understand their dissimulation, they also write:

          But this morning we reviewed our work and decided to change it to Mostly True because we concluded Obama was not crediting his policies as directly as we originally thought.

          Obama is still crediting his policies, just not as directly, so now that becomes Mostly True?

          I bet these guys would be good Boy Scouts seeing the complexity of the knots they can tie themselves into.

          Proud to be a Truth Vigilante

          by Calvino Partigiani on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:07:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They did NOT correct themselves (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, Flying Goat, rja, ER Doc

          They only changed it to "mostly" true, even though they admit the statement was 100% true.  They just can't bring themselves to say just plain true because that would open them to accusations of liberal bias from conservatives who think it's unfair to cite economic statistics at any time, even without taking credit.

          "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

          by dcg2 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:45:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Using the term implicit (9+ / 0-)

      means that he does not have to say "thanks to me" for them to interpret that he means us to take the message "thanks to me" and thusly consider it half false based on what he didn't even fucking say.

      #Occupy Wallstreet - Politicians will not support the movement until it is too big to fail.

      by Sychotic1 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:48:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, Tonedevil, rja

      They should not always have to be qualifying statements in which they do NOT take credit, just to satisfy a corrupt newspaper feature. It would appear vacillating, groveling and weak, and the Republicans would eat it up.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:25:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  that would be true, if.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calvino Partigiani, Tonedevil, rja

      Your interpretation would be true if they were rating instances where President Obama takes credit, and then saying it's only half-true because some economists think he doesn't deserve all the credit.

      But what they are fact-checking is when he says "more people have jobs" (he doesn't say "thanks to me" so he doesn't need to insert "many."  Hell, by definition when he quotes economic statistics, he is saying "many" unless he is claiming full employment.)

      So back to your point, do the speech writers have to say "in part, thanks to me," if they weren't even planning to say "thanks to me," but just wanted to cite the stats?  Under your standard -- and politifact, they would have to start saying "thanks to me" all the time so they could qualify it.

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:43:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (170)
  • Baltimore (86)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (59)
  • Civil Rights (54)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (35)
  • Racism (32)
  • Law (31)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (26)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Politics (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Police (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site