Check your facts before you state them

[gabosaurus]

The Poynter Group has been detailing and fact checking members of media and blogosphere for a while and is usually quite accurate.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/

[Pernicious]

Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings University of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Minnesota) political science professor Eric Ostermeier did an analysis of 511 selected PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He said "PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent)..." Republican officeholders were considered by Politifact to have made substantially more "false" or "pants on fire" statements than their Democratic counterparts. Of 98 statements PolitiFact judged "false" or "pants on fire" from partisan political figures, 74 came from Republicans (76 percent) compared to 22 from Democrats (22 percent) during the selected period reviewed. Ostermeier concluded "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-23) A writer with the left-leaning magazine The Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation) argued that findings like this are a reflection of "fact-checkers simply doing their job... Republicans today just happen to be more egregiously wrong...."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-24) A writer with the right-leaning Human Events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Events) claimed that after looking at Politifact's work on a case by case basis a pattern emerged whereby Politifact critiqued straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) claims; that is, "dismissed the speaker’s claim, made up a different claim and checked that instead." The conservative magazine noted Politifact's use of language such as "[although the speaker] used [a specific] phrase... in his claim, could fairly be interpreted to mean [something more general that is false]..." [I]Human Events cited Bryan White's PolitiFactBias blog to state that "from the end of that partnership [with the Congressional Quarterly] to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-25)
Criticism of specific fact checks Barack Obama's Saturday Night Live campaign promises In October 2009, PolitiFact.com fact-checked a skit on the sketch comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketch_comedy) television show Saturday Night Live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live) that showed President Obama stating that he had not accomplished anything thus far;[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-26) PolitiFact's appraisal was then reported on CNN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN). Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal) writer James Taranto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Taranto) called the fact-checking "a bizarre exercise", and added, "PolitiFact does not appear to have done the same for past "SNL" sketches spoofing Republican politicians ... It's as if CNN and the St. Petersburg Times are trying to reinforce the impression that they are in the tank for Obama."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-27)
Success of Recovery Act In February 2010, PolitiFact.com rated President Obama's statement that the Recovery Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Act) had saved or created 2 million jobs in the United States as "half true", stating that the real figure was 1 million according to several independent studies.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-28) Economist Brian Riedl (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Riedl&action=edit&redlink=1) of the conservative Heritage Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation) responded that such a statement "belongs in an opinion editorial – not a fact check", since "there is no way to determine how the economy would have performed without a stimulus."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-29)
Halliburton use of tax money In July 2010, Huffington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post) blogger Ayo Adeyeye (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayo_Adeyeye&action=edit&redlink=1) criticized them for labelling a statement by Arianna Huffington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington) that the company Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton) was "defraud the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars" as half-true, instead of fully true.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-30)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act), also referred to as the ACA and "Obamacare", has been a frequent subject of PolitiFact's rulings both before and after it was passed into law in 2010. Statements about it have constituted three of PolitiFact's "lie of the year" awards, in 2009, 2010 and 2013.
Taranto of the [I]Wall Street Journal said PolitiFact was "less seeker of truth than servant of power", after it ranked as "Lie of the Year" Sarah Palin's claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would lead to "death panels". Taranto wrote that the act "necessarily expands the power of federal bureaucrats to make [life and death] decisions, and it creates enormous fiscal pressures to err on the side of death."[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-death_panels_revisited-31)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-32)
After PolitiFact ruled the claim that the act represented a "government takeover of healthcare" to be its "lie of the year" in 2010, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the ruling, saying that the legislation would "convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands... All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. Sounds like a government takeover to us."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-politifiction-19)
After PolitiFact called President Obama's often-repeated promise that, under the act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as its "lie of the year" in 2013, critics noted that PolitiFact had earlier ruled differently on the same claim. PolitiFact had rated the statement as true in 2008, stating that "Obama is accurately describing his health care plan here."[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-true2008-33)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-examiner-34) In 2009 and again in 2012, Politifact rated the statement half true.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-examiner-34) This discrepancy drew criticism from political commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, including Joan McCarter (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_McCarter&action=edit&redlink=1)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-35) and the Center for Economic and Policy Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research).[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-36) Conservative commentator Avik Roy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avik_Roy), noting the discrepancy, stated that PolitiFact should stop evaluating predictions about the future, including campaign promises, as facts.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-37)
Rachel Maddow and Wisconsin budget In February 2011, Rachel Maddow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow) criticized PolitiFact for incorrectly stating that she denied that there was a budget shortfall in Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin), providing a clip of herself explicitly stating that "there is in fact a $137 million budget shortfall" on her own show.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-maddow-38) However, Politifact responded by pointing that the Maddow edited the clip and did not include the full context, as she had originally stated "There is in fact a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Gov. Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office. Hey, wait. That's about exactly the size of the shortfall."[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-upppf-39) Maddow also claimed earlier in the broadcast that "despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year."[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-upppf-39)
Defense Department definitions of al-Qaeda and Taliban After Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) stated that in the U.S. Department of Defense "budget, they have changed the wording on the definition of al-Qaeda and Taliban. It's (now) anybody associated with (those) organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated – so that makes all Americans vulnerable. And now we know that American citizens are vulnerable to assassination", PolitiFact concluded that Paul's statements were "mostly false". Author, blogger and civil rights litigator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights) Glenn Greenwald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald), in the politically progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) Salon.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_%28website%29), criticized PolitiFact's determination: "It undermines its own credibility when it purports to resolve subjective disputes of political opinion under the guise of objective expertise", he wrote, saying that the sources it cited in this particular analysis were "highly biased, ideologically rigid establishment advocates" and presented "as some kind of neutral expert-arbiters of fact."[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-salon-40)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-41)
Republicans voting to "end Medicare" In 2011, PolitiFact concluded that a statement by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that a budget proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan passed by Republicans in the House and Senate meant that "Republicans voted to end Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29) and charge seniors $12,000" was "pants on fire" false.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-42) This conclusion was criticized at the time by Talking Points Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo)[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-talkingpointsmemo-43) and left-wing blogs including the Daily Kos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-dailykos-44) and Firedoglake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firedoglake).[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-firedoglake-45) After it was named the Lie of the Year, the choice was criticized by commentators including Paul Krugman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman), who wrote that the DCCC statement was true and was chosen only because PolitiFact, having criticized conservatives in the two previous years, had "bent over backwards to appear 'balanced'";[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-46) Steve Benen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Benen), who called the decision "credibility-killing";[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-47) Jonathan Chait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Chait), who called PolitiFact a "shoddy, not-very-smart group";[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-48) and David Weigel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weigel).[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-49) The characterization was also criticized by conservative commentators, such as Taranto and Ramesh Ponnuru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesh_Ponnuru), who called the DCCC statement incorrect but a matter of opinion, not a lie.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-50)[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-51) PolitiFact noted that reader responses to their selection of this statement as the 2011 Lie of the Year were almost entirely negative, saying, "Of roughly 1,500 e-mails we received, nearly all criticized our choice."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-52) PolitiFact responded to the flood of comments, saying "We've read the critiques and see nothing that changes our findings. We stand by our story and our conclusion that the claim was the most significant falsehood of 2011. We made no judgments on the merits of the Ryan plan; we just said that the characterization by the Democrats was false", and noted that competitors Factcheck.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factcheck.org) and FactChecker came to similar conclusions.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-53)
State of the Union 2012 In January 2012, commentators such as Maddow and Daily Kos criticized PolitiFact for rating a statement in President Obama's State of the Union Address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address) about private sector job growth as "Half True" despite acknowledging that the statement was factually correct. In response to the criticism, PolitiFact altered their rating to "Mostly True", which was criticized as still being inaccurate.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-maddow2-54)[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-dailykos2-55) In the same speech, Obama stated that consumption of imported liquid fuel had dropped below fifty percent; PolitiFact called this "Half True",[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-56) since, despite its accuracy, it was falsely implying that this had happened due to Obama's actions. Maddow criticized this rating as well.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-maddow3-57)
Conservatism in America On February 14, 2012, PolitiFact rated a statement by Senator Marco Rubio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio) that the majority of Americans are conservative as "Mostly True", despite acknowledging that only 40% of Americans, not a majority, were conservative, according to a recent poll.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-politifact-rubio-58) Maddow criticized this rating, saying that PolitiFact was "a disaster" and should shut down its operations.[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-maddow4-59) Adair responded to this criticism by saying that 40% "wasn't quite a majority, but was close", and still represented a plurality. Politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico) and the Daily Kos both criticized this rebuttal, with the former saying that Adair had actually confirmed Maddow's point and the latter noting that in the past PolitiFact had made a clear distinction between plurality and majority when rating a similar statement by Congressman Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) as "False".[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-politico-60)[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-dailykos3-61) On February 24, PolitFact revised their rating of Rubio's statement to "Half True".[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-politifact-rubio-58)
G.I. Bill as welfare That month, PolitiFact also rated a statement by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell), that critics of the G.I. Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill) had "called it welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare)", as "Mostly False", because they found no evidence that the word "welfare" had ever been used. Mediaite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite) commentator Tommy Christopher criticized this, saying that "criticism of the bill was unquestionably in the spirit of modern welfare politics, and then some." Christopher also noted that PolitiFact reviewed only a limited sample of the contemporary criticism of the G.I. Bill, and said that what they did review "not only supports the spirit of O’Donnell’s claim, it renders it an understatement."[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-mediaite-62)
Tennessee tax burden On March 16, 2012, Nashville Bureau Chief Tom Humphrey of the Knoxville News Sentinel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_News_Sentinel) wrote an article for PolitiFact Tennessee that gave a beer excise tax map graphic posted by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation) a "False" rating for statements about Tennessee's tax burden on beer the graphic never claimed.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-63)[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-64) The same day, the Tax Foundation's Joseph Henchman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Henchman&action=edit&redlink=1) countered in a blog post on the organization's website that PolitiFact should have rated the statement a "True but not comprehensive" and claiming "their author doesn't understand the difference between excise taxes and other taxes, or that our map looks at just one tax and is not a comprehensive look at the entire tax system of a state".[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-65) PolitiFact Tennessee published a revised ruling on March 20 rating the map "Half True", taking exception with the source of data used.[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-66)
White House security screening of fetuses On May 8, 2012, PolitiFact rated a claim by the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Right_to_Life_Committee) that the White House Visitors Office does security screening of the unborn babies of pregnant women visitors as "Mostly False". PolitiFact noted that the NRLC inaccurately described the policy, which was designed to accommodate babies expected to be born after registration but before the date of the White House tour.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-67) Rachel Maddow criticized PolitiFact for rating the claim "Mostly False" instead of "False" after PolitiFact agreed that the claim "wildly misconstrued" White House policy. Maddow remarked, "You can get something, quote, wildly wrong, and still only be mostly wrong about it? What does it take to get a false rating on PolitiFact? False, as in you got it wrong." She had previously criticized PolitiFact in recent months for its errors in fact-checking, and predicted the death of the organization as a credible resource.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-maddow5-68)
Jeep manufacturing in China In January 2013, writer Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard) criticized PolitiFact's ruling, writing that Romney's claim had turned out to be true.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-69) Hemingway cited the fact that Chrysler had announced that they would expand manufacturing of their low-end Jeep model, the Jeep Patriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Patriot), into China.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-70) In response, a Politifact editorial posted by Bill Adair responded that "No, it doesn’t." and pointed out that the Politifact judgement was in response to Romney's claim "that jobs in the United States were being moved to China, or perhaps that Jeep was moving its entire operations to China" and that Chrysler's announcement in 2013 still did not support this assertion since no jobs in America were being lost, and the "entire operation" as claimed by Romney was still not being moved to China.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-71)
Martina Navratilova's statement on gay rights On May 5, 2013, PolitFact rated a statement by retired tennis star and gay rights activist Martina Navratilova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Navratilova) that there are 29 states in the United States in which a person can be fired for being gay as "Half True".[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-politifact-navratilova-72) On May 7, Rachel Maddow sharply criticized this rating, noting that PolitiFact's own assessment found that there were in fact 29 states that do not prohibit such discrimination by employers. She dismissed PolitiFact's arguments that some cities within those 29 states offer protection to gay employees and that some employers voluntarily do not discriminate against homosexuals as immaterial to what Navratilova actually said.[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-maddow6-73) The Daily Kos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos) expressed similar objections, while also reiterating their criticism of some of PolitiFact's previous assessments.[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com#cite_note-dailykos4-74)

[tailfins]

Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times, an extreme left-wing tabloid with seedy advertisements on the back.

[Pernicious]

politifact is run by the tampa bay times, an extreme left-wing tabloid with seedy advertisements on the back.yup!

[Gaffer]

I looked at the title of the thread and then the poster and the whole thing just shouts out hypocrite.

[Drummond]

I looked at the title of the thread and then the poster and the whole thing just shouts out hypocrite.

When it comes to checking things out .. when a known Left winger offers links, I invariably find that those links lead to those offering pro-Left bias.

Gabby mentions 'Poynter' ? Well ... guess what I've found ...

http://www.mrc.org/articles/soros-funded-group-behind-course-journalists-downplays-jihad


A new course on Islam designed for journalists tries to minimize the impact and importance of ''jihad'' by comparing it to the number of murders in America each year. That same course claims ''right-wing activists'' tried to tie American Muslims to terrorism and doesn't mention examples of Islamic attacks on press freedom.

That's the way a prominent news organization is teaching journalists in a three-hour online course. The Poynter News University, part of the Poynter Institute, launched the free course ''Covering Islam in America'' to guide the media on their coverage of Muslim communities.

The George Soros-funded Social Science Research Council, which received $50,000 from the Open Society Institute ''For Initiative on HIV/AIDS and Social Transformation,'' is one of the groups behind the initiative, along with the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. That fits with a theme for liberal financier Soros, who has spent more than $52 million on influencing the media. The Islamic course also links to another Soros-funded entity, the well-financed Center for American Progress.


In about 30 pages of text with links to other reports and articles, journalists can go through and read about the history of Islam, Muslims in America, and how to cover stories on Islam. Besides learning basic facts about Muslims and their history, the course adds ways to put ''jihad'' into perspective, attack conservatives, and provide a list of liberal groups that can be contacted for expert advice and quotes.

[gabosaurus]

It's sad that many of you only see things as left and right, conservative and liberal.
The Poynter Institute is the nation's foremost authority on journalism and media integrity. It doesn't lean right or left.
Once again, you are invoking the Bush mantra of "anyone who isn't with us is against us." Just because an organization doesn't espouse conservative values 100 percent of the time doesn't mean it is not trustworthy.

[Drummond]

It's sad that many of you only see things as left and right, conservative and liberal.
The Poynter Institute is the nation's foremost authority on journalism and media integrity. It doesn't lean right or left.
Once again, you are invoking the Bush mantra of "anyone who isn't with us is against us." Just because an organization doesn't espouse conservative values 100 percent of the time doesn't mean it is not trustworthy.

It doesn't lean left or right ? Really ?

Then go back and read the link I found ... and explain its dubious links. I see Soros is involved, lurking, so to speak ?

As for your last sentence, well, I'm far more inclined to trust a pro-Conservative organisation than any other !! Left wing ones often hide what they really are. And even the 'genuinely' neutral ones are exploitable by the Left (the British 'Independent' newspaper comes to mind .. genuinely neutral when it started, but these days frequently lurches to the Left).