![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
PolitiFact is arbitrary, at best
Last year, the Republicans put forth a proposal: They would shut down Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The program would still be called Medicare, but all it would do would be to reimburse seniors for some of the costs of getting private insurance themselves. The entire structure we know as Medicare would cease to exist. The safety net it represents would no longer function. There would still be something called Medicare, but it would not provide services. Just checks which would, for many, be inadequate, and off to the open market. Good luck finding a decent plan in your state willing to cover you at your age without spouting off about pre-existing conditions.
Democrats went on the attack, claiming that Republicans had voted to kill Medicare. PolitiFact, time and again, rated that claim false. In the end, despite numerous objections and ignoring the results of their reader poll (differing for the first time from their own selection), PolitiFact named it the Lie of the Year.
And yet, in that very post, they admit that the claim is mostly true. Their objections?
1. Democrats didn't mention that the change would not take effect for 10 years. This does not actually affect the substantive truth of the claim that Republicans had voted to gut Medicare.
2. They think saying the plan would "kill" Medicare was too harsh. Medicare is government health insurance. Under the new plan, the government would no longer be doing that. Leaving the name in place does not mean wiping away its entire functionality is not killing it. This objection is nothing more than quibbling over semantics.
3. The people in the commercials were old. Their claim is that doing so implies current seniors would be affected by the change (which, again, wouldn't take effect for 10 years). But Medicare is a program for seniors. It wouldn't make sense to put anyone younger in the ad. PolitiFact is assuming implications and then using those to shoot down the claim.
That's it. Three very weak objections, and they name a substantively true statement their "Lie of the Year."
Since then, Rachel Maddow has caught PolitiFact making some very arbitrary rulings. The clips are neatly gathered here.
1. In their fact check of the State of the Union address, they evaluated a statement by the President about job creation. They found the statement to be factually true, but read into it an implication which they decided was false. So they rated it "half true." When they were hit with objections over this ruling, they upgraded the rating to "mostly true." The President made a factual claim. Objectively, numerically true. And they arbitrarily decided to rate it less than "true." Twice. Because, once again, they assumed hidden false implications.
2. Another fact check of the President had the same problem. The President made a factually true statement (acknowledged by PolitiFact in their rating)... and then rated it half true because, once again, they assumed a hidden implication.
3. Flipping things around, they checked a claim from Marco Rubio that "the majority of Americans are Conservative." They found that the claim was not supported by the facts - no matter how they looked, they could not find evidence that over 50% of Americans are or identify as Conservative. But more Americans identified as Conservative than Liberal, so they decided the claim (which didn't say that) was "mostly true."
But their errors aren't just against Liberals. They also checked a claim about Newt Gingrich. Specifically, that he once proposed putting a giant mirror in space. This page evaluated that ruling. It turns out that Gingrich once went to a conference where scientists were brainstorming, pitching wild and grand ideas. At one point, in one of his books, he wrote some positive things about the session. And never mentioned it again. From this, PolitiFact decided that he'd endorsed every idea from the session and that, since he hadn't mentioned it again, there was no evidence that he'd changed his mind. Therefore, the claim that he proposed putting the mirror in place is rated true. Not half true. Not mostly true. Just true.
I'm sure I could dig up more. Bottom line? PolitiFact's rulings are arbitrary, at best. They're not evaluating fact. They're outright ignoring the objective facts their own research turns up and instead making ratings based on assumptions, supposed implications, and semantics.
Democrats went on the attack, claiming that Republicans had voted to kill Medicare. PolitiFact, time and again, rated that claim false. In the end, despite numerous objections and ignoring the results of their reader poll (differing for the first time from their own selection), PolitiFact named it the Lie of the Year.
And yet, in that very post, they admit that the claim is mostly true. Their objections?
1. Democrats didn't mention that the change would not take effect for 10 years. This does not actually affect the substantive truth of the claim that Republicans had voted to gut Medicare.
2. They think saying the plan would "kill" Medicare was too harsh. Medicare is government health insurance. Under the new plan, the government would no longer be doing that. Leaving the name in place does not mean wiping away its entire functionality is not killing it. This objection is nothing more than quibbling over semantics.
3. The people in the commercials were old. Their claim is that doing so implies current seniors would be affected by the change (which, again, wouldn't take effect for 10 years). But Medicare is a program for seniors. It wouldn't make sense to put anyone younger in the ad. PolitiFact is assuming implications and then using those to shoot down the claim.
That's it. Three very weak objections, and they name a substantively true statement their "Lie of the Year."
Since then, Rachel Maddow has caught PolitiFact making some very arbitrary rulings. The clips are neatly gathered here.
1. In their fact check of the State of the Union address, they evaluated a statement by the President about job creation. They found the statement to be factually true, but read into it an implication which they decided was false. So they rated it "half true." When they were hit with objections over this ruling, they upgraded the rating to "mostly true." The President made a factual claim. Objectively, numerically true. And they arbitrarily decided to rate it less than "true." Twice. Because, once again, they assumed hidden false implications.
2. Another fact check of the President had the same problem. The President made a factually true statement (acknowledged by PolitiFact in their rating)... and then rated it half true because, once again, they assumed a hidden implication.
3. Flipping things around, they checked a claim from Marco Rubio that "the majority of Americans are Conservative." They found that the claim was not supported by the facts - no matter how they looked, they could not find evidence that over 50% of Americans are or identify as Conservative. But more Americans identified as Conservative than Liberal, so they decided the claim (which didn't say that) was "mostly true."
But their errors aren't just against Liberals. They also checked a claim about Newt Gingrich. Specifically, that he once proposed putting a giant mirror in space. This page evaluated that ruling. It turns out that Gingrich once went to a conference where scientists were brainstorming, pitching wild and grand ideas. At one point, in one of his books, he wrote some positive things about the session. And never mentioned it again. From this, PolitiFact decided that he'd endorsed every idea from the session and that, since he hadn't mentioned it again, there was no evidence that he'd changed his mind. Therefore, the claim that he proposed putting the mirror in place is rated true. Not half true. Not mostly true. Just true.
I'm sure I could dig up more. Bottom line? PolitiFact's rulings are arbitrary, at best. They're not evaluating fact. They're outright ignoring the objective facts their own research turns up and instead making ratings based on assumptions, supposed implications, and semantics.