• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Politifact have a liberal bias?

voyager1 said:
Many of the things are submitted to them from readers. Also anything that is making a big deal on the news or Internet generally gets picked up.
Click to expand...
Technically, you're agreeing with me, but your tone says the opposite.

Even if what politifact is saying is 100% true, drawing conclusions from it is pure assumption.
 
mpg said:
Technically, you're agreeing with me, but your tone says the opposite.

Even if what politifact is saying is 100% true, drawing conclusions from it is pure assumption.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean.
 
mpg said:
Technically, you're agreeing with me, but your tone says the opposite.

Even if what politifact is saying is 100% true, drawing conclusions from it is pure assumption.
Click to expand...

I am not really agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out how Politifact works. Not sure what you mean by your second point.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not true. The disclaimer only applies to drawing broad conclusions, but not about the information provided. This is logic 101.
Click to expand...

PolitiFact provides the disclaimer that it does not choose its stories in keeping with the methods of science, therefore it's true that the disclaimer applies to the information. If you've got a problem with that logic then you need to retake logic 101.

Yes, which changes nothing. There is a warning, and framing doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...

The thing that doesn't change is your lack of a substantial rationale for denying the obvious media framing.
 
voyager1 said:
Many of the things are submitted to them from readers.
Click to expand...

How many? You don't know, do you? It's likely a relatively small number, and if anything the left is lobbying hard to keep its issues in PolitiFact's field of view. That's Media Matters' bread and butter, for example. Check PF's Facebook page (comments) if you want an informal survey of the ideology of its readers.

Also anything that is making a big deal on the news or Internet generally gets picked up.
Click to expand...

I see lots of stuff making a big deal that doesn't get picked up. Maybe they pick up stuff that's a big deal on the left more often that stuff that's a big deal on the right?
 
BWWzfc said:
How many? You don't know, do you? It's likely a relatively small number, and if anything the left is lobbying hard to keep its issues in PolitiFact's field of view. That's Media Matters' bread and butter, for example. Check PF's Facebook page (comments) if you want an informal survey of the ideology of its readers.



I see lots of stuff making a big deal that doesn't get picked up. Maybe they pick up stuff that's a big deal on the left more often that stuff that's a big deal on the right?
Click to expand...

I am not on Facebook. I don't use Politifact for everything I read, however the times I have been curious about something they have had it. I think the difference is people see things differently. Cons /GOPers see things in black/white more and Libs/Dems see things in shades of gray. That is my humble opinion from reading more of your site and the comments from your fellow Cons/GOPers on here.
 
voyager1 said:
I am not on Facebook.
Click to expand...

PolitiFact's Facebook page is public. You can view it even if you don't have a Facebook account.

I don't use Politifact for everything I read, however the times I have been curious about something they have had it. I think the difference is people see things differently. Cons /GOPers see things in black/white more and Libs/Dems see things in shades of gray. That is my humble opinion from reading more of your site and the comments from your fellow Cons/GOPers on here.
Click to expand...

You need to read the part of my site where I explain that truth is always black and white. ;-)

There's one central truth in your observation, however: "people see things differently." When the press is measurably to the left of mainstream America, doesn't it make sense that their different view of things is likely to have some effect on their fact-checking? And isn't that effect likely biased toward the left of mainstream America, assuming there's no mechanism successfully designed to eliminate the bias?
 
BWWzfc said:
PolitiFact's Facebook page is public. You can view it even if you don't have a Facebook account.



You need to read the part of my site where I explain that truth is always black and white. ;-)

There's one central truth in your observation, however: "people see things differently." When the press is measurably to the left of mainstream America, doesn't it make sense that their different view of things is likely to have some effect on their fact-checking? And isn't that effect likely biased toward the left of mainstream America, assuming there's no mechanism successfully designed to eliminate the bias?
Click to expand...

I am sorry but truth is usually shades of gray when it comes to many things. I also disagree with the media being left of mainstream America. The media reports blood and gore and sensationalism first and foremost. secondly if the Americans were right of center then we would have a President Romney or a second term McCain. The sad thing is GOPers lose on the issues because there is less people voting GOP, it might have to do with candidates and platform, of course GOPers only think it is "the media."

Quit running asinine candidates. Quick saying stupid things like legitimate rape. Don't shutdown the government. Don't get mad when someone videos a candidate when everyone has a iPhone and act like it is so unbelievable when it happens.
 
voyager1 said:
I am sorry but truth is usually shades of gray when it comes to many things.
Click to expand...

You should offer me the opportunity to persuade you otherwise.

I also disagree with the media being left of mainstream America.
Click to expand...

Polling data says you should accept the media being left of mainstream America. That's based on a survey sample of the media and going by journalists' self-perception.

The American Journalist | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

That's from 2006, of course. Lately the trend is for more journalists to identify as "Independent." But it's still markedly to the left of the American mainstream.

The media reports blood and gore and sensationalism first and foremost.
Click to expand...

If it bleeds it leads, right. But that's tangential to the ideology of journalists.

secondly if the Americans were right of center then we would have a President Romney or a second term McCain.
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't follow, and it isn't even the right way to think about it. In terms of American ideology, the average American is exactly in the center. Journalists are left of the average American. But Americans are more likely to identify as conservative than liberal (by quite a bit), and are all over the map on various issues. So a canny campaign manager can swing the vote depending on how the campaign plays to the special interests (using the term in its hopefully value-neutral sense) of the electorate. And that's where the media can help. Or hurt.

The sad thing is GOPers lose on the issues because there is less people voting GOP, it might have to do with candidates and platform, of course GOPers only think it is "the media."
Click to expand...

It's worse than you think. People tend to vote for the candidate they like. Informed voters are the minority. Voters with the highest education tend to vote Democrat, but as the cross-section drops in terms of education Republicans quickly take the lead. Uneducated people tend to vote Democrat. So the Democratic base is a minority of very educated people and a majority of the least-educated voters. The bulk of the GOP base is between those extremes. The political game, then, is to make your candidate more likeable than the other choice. The least-educated and the swing voters together make the difference between winning and losing in most elections. And the media play a part in that.

The key for Democratic electoral success right now is probably based on distrust of religion. But that's a subject for a different thread.
 
BWWzfc said:
You should offer me the opportunity to persuade you otherwise.



Polling data says you should accept the media being left of mainstream America. That's based on a survey sample of the media and going by journalists' self-perception.

The American Journalist | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

That's from 2006, of course. Lately the trend is for more journalists to identify as "Independent." But it's still markedly to the left of the American mainstream.



If it bleeds it leads, right. But that's tangential to the ideology of journalists.



No, that doesn't follow, and it isn't even the right way to think about it. In terms of American ideology, the average American is exactly in the center. Journalists are left of the average American. But Americans are more likely to identify as conservative than liberal (by quite a bit), and are all over the map on various issues. So a canny campaign manager can swing the vote depending on how the campaign plays to the special interests (using the term in its hopefully value-neutral sense) of the electorate. And that's where the media can help. Or hurt.



It's worse than you think. People tend to vote for the candidate they like. Informed voters are the minority. Voters with the highest education tend to vote Democrat, but as the cross-section drops in terms of education Republicans quickly take the lead. Uneducated people tend to vote Democrat. So the Democratic base is a minority of very educated people and a majority of the least-educated voters. The bulk of the GOP base is between those extremes. The political game, then, is to make your candidate more likeable than the other choice. The least-educated and the swing voters together make the difference between winning and losing in most elections. And the media play a part in that.

The key for Democratic electoral success right now is probably based on distrust of religion. But that's a subject for a different thread.
Click to expand...

Regarding your last paragraph. No. The Dems won in 2012 because y'all ran crappy candidates, made some stupid comments and oh yeah that nobody pays taxes crap. Obama should have been pounded into the ground with the ways things were going economically. But the GOP went full retard and lost what should have been an easy election. It appears that 2014 y'all are set up to do well, at least for now.

As for your breakdown of the population. Here is another take from a decent source.
Voting By Sex, Age, Race, Money, And Education - Business Insider

A college degree is important, heck I got two. But more goes into voting then where you went to school. I really don't think the American voter is stupid at all. People just believe want they want based on their values, interests or
experiences.
 
BWWzfc said:
PolitiFact provides the disclaimer that it does not choose its stories in keeping with the methods of science, therefore it's true that the disclaimer applies to the information. If you've got a problem with that logic then you need to retake logic 101.



The thing that doesn't change is your lack of a substantial rationale for denying the obvious media framing.
Click to expand...

Non should it use scientific methods as they are not doing a scientific study of any kind. You seem to not understand any if this.
 
BWWzfc said:
While I do see quite a bit of that, liberals claiming methodological problems whenever research runs against them, Boo Radley has a valid point.

Hopefully I can set this disagreement to rest.

Noting the disparity between ratings for Democrats and Republicans on the surface provides a legitimate but weak argument that the fact checker is biased. It's a weak argument because there's no baseline from which to measure PolitiFact's deviation from neutrality. Radley (among others, if I'm not mistaken) is correct to point this out.

On the other hand, the left should be just as vigorous in denouncing attempts to use PolitiFact data as their proof that Republicans are more deceptive than Democrats. Plainly, PolitiFact's selection of stories isn't random even if by some miracle their ratings are done fairly. Nobody should give that conclusion the time of day.

Finally, the disparities in the ratings are a legitimate, if weak evidence of liberal bias. We know via survey data that journalists skew left. It makes intuitive sense for left-leaning journalists to have more interest in fact-checking stories that offend their own views of the world. The surveys from the University of Minnosota (Ostermeier) and George Mason University are both designed to tease out that evidence of story-selection bias. Neither study proves it. And, above all, liberals who reported on those studies as though they showed Republicans lie more were making a huge mistake of their own.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate how you were earnestly trying to be careful in your comment. That said, the bias is only a bias if both sides really do lie just as much. One must be careful about false equivalencies - the fact that both sides are human does not necessarily mean that both sides lie just as much. There is a mounting body of evidence showing that there are honest-to-goodness biological differences that explain at least to some extent the differences between conservative and liberal minds. Google "amygdala conservative liberal" and you'll see what I mean.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be snarky here. I was raised as a strong conservative and even today almost all my friends are conservatives - I've got precisely three friends who aren't (wife, youngest son, and some guy at Church). But today's conservatives (as opposed to conservatives of, say, 30 years ago) are much more likely than liberals to believe that evolution is false, that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago, and that anthropogenic global warming is false. In other words, conservatives are much less trusting of scientists...which is probably one reason why only six percent of scientists are Republican. Please note that I did not say this applies to all conservatives, but it certainly does apply to significantly more conservatives than it does to liberals.

How does this apply to the issue? If one side is less trusting of modern scientific thought and fact than the other side, then that one side is almost certainly more likely to believe that which is false...and more likely to elect those who espouse those falsehoods.

One more thing - again, please understand that I am not passing judgment on conservatives as a whole - remember, almost all my friends are conservative (which comes with being raised in the Deep South, having a 20-year military career, and belonging to a very conservative Church). But the observations I've made above do apply.
 
Boo Radley said:
Non should it use scientific methods as they are not doing a scientific study of any kind. You seem to not understand any if this.
Click to expand...

There's no accounting for your failure to see that I understand very well PolitiFact is not doing a scientific study. That's what makes their report cards and network ratings so bogus. They present their report cards in formats framed as though they're doing some sort of scientific study, one that would permit people to carefully draw justifiable generalizations about people and networks. You don't seem to understand the obviousness of the framing issue. You repeatedly deny framing is going on, and you consistently avoid justifying your position.
 
BWWzfc said:
PolitiFact provides the disclaimer that it does not choose its stories in keeping with the methods of science, therefore it's true that the disclaimer applies to the information. If you've got a problem with that logic then you need to retake logic 101.



The thing that doesn't change is your lack of a substantial rationale for denying the obvious media framing.
Click to expand...

Nor should it be scientific as it isn't a scientific endeavor. You don't understand this well do you?
 
BWWzfc said:
There's no accounting for your failure to see that I understand very well PolitiFact is not doing a scientific study. That's what makes their report cards and network ratings so bogus. They present their report cards in formats framed as though they're doing some sort of scientific study, one that would permit people to carefully draw justifiable generalizations about people and networks. You don't seem to understand the obviousness of the framing issue. You repeatedly deny framing is going on, and you consistently avoid justifying your position.
Click to expand...

Not, they merely use reporting as a gimmick, but only check the silly statements brought to them. And framing is not relevant here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nor should it be scientific as it isn't a scientific endeavor. You don't understand this well do you?
Click to expand...

I suppose quoting a post of mine you've already replied to and replying to it again is one way to continue your general non-responsiveness.

You don't have any argument supporting your assertion that PolitiFact does not engage in media framing with its report card stories, do you?

Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the ... - Google Books
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I can appreciate how you were earnestly trying to be careful in your comment. That said, the bias is only a bias if both sides really do lie just as much.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Selection bias is a different animal than ideological bias, though ideological bias may contribute to selection bias. Selection bias essentially just means that the selection method offers no reason to expect a representative sample. The bias against the representative sample means you don't really know if PolitiFact's ratings have anything at all to do with the propensity for lying by party. You can pretend to verify PolitiFact data with your own heuristic evaluations, but how reliable are they? Wouldn't you be likely to set yourself up for committing confirmation bias?

One must be careful about false equivalencies - the fact that both sides are human does not necessarily mean that both sides lie just as much. There is a mounting body of evidence showing that there are honest-to-goodness biological differences that explain at least to some extent the differences between conservative and liberal minds. Google "amygdala conservative liberal" and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Mooney's a hack, but that would take us off topic.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be snarky here. I was raised as a strong conservative and even today almost all my friends are conservatives - I've got precisely three friends who aren't (wife, youngest son, and some guy at Church). But today's conservatives (as opposed to conservatives of, say, 30 years ago) are much more likely than liberals to believe that evolution is false, that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago, and that anthropogenic global warming is false. In other words, conservatives are much less trusting of scientists...which is probably one reason why only six percent of scientists are Republican. Please note that I did not say this applies to all conservatives, but it certainly does apply to significantly more conservatives than it does to liberals.
Click to expand...

I assume that in the above when you say "conservatives" you're talking about politicians. If you're not, then I'd like for you to substantiate your claims. If you're talking about politicians, it makes a certain amount of sense because the conservative wing of Christianity largely retreated from the public square for most of the first two-thirds of the 20th century before realizing the consequences for the retreat were unacceptable.

How does this apply to the issue? If one side is less trusting of modern scientific thought and fact than the other side, then that one side is almost certainly more likely to believe that which is false...and more likely to elect those who espouse those falsehoods.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's test the foundation of your claim. You find the best scholarly paper available on the web that supports what you say and I'll see if I can find a significant flaw in the methodology. If I succeed, you should doubt the foundation of your claim.

One more thing - again, please understand that I am not passing judgment on conservatives as a whole - remember, almost all my friends are conservative (which comes with being raised in the Deep South, having a 20-year military career, and belonging to a very conservative Church). But the observations I've made above do apply.
Click to expand...

You've got a story that helps you make sense of PolitiFact's findings. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong (I think we'd find the latter if we examine the facts), but none of it does much to explain why Harry Reid can say that a majority of five white men on the Supreme Court produced the Hobby Lobby decision and PolitiFact just doesn't care. If journalists view things as you do, wouldn't that make them that much more inclined to engage in an ideologically-tinged version of selection bias? Gotta stop those crazy conservative lies, right?
 
BWWzfc said:
I suppose quoting a post of mine you've already replied to and replying to it again is one way to continue your general non-responsiveness.

You don't have any argument supporting your assertion that PolitiFact does not engage in media framing with its report card stories, do you?

Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the ... - Google Books
Click to expand...

if I did that, it was in error. And no, the burden is yours. And it must be specific to Politifact, showing they meet the criteria and not you misreading of it.
 
Boo Radley said:
if I did that, it was in error. And no, the burden is yours. And it must be specific to Politifact, showing they meet the criteria and not you misreading of it.
Click to expand...

Given that I've shared authoritative material with you indicating that framing is ubiquitous and virtually unavoidable, you're making yourself guilty of a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. In a case where a practice, such as media framing, happens all the time, the burden falls on the person denying a case of framing.

Gracyk's Explanations of basic fallacies

Beware the fallacy of invincible ignorance.



You don't have to take my word for it. Try the respected source Eric Ostermeier (Ph.D.) of the University of Minnesota.

"The question is not whether PolitiFact will ultimately convert skeptics on the right that they do not have ulterior motives in the selection of what statements are rated, but whether the organization can give a convincing argument that either a) Republicans in fact do lie much more than Democrats, or b) if they do not, that it is immaterial that PolitiFact covers political discourse with a frame that suggests this is the case."
Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics
 
BWWzfc said:
Given that I've shared authoritative material with you indicating that framing is ubiquitous and virtually unavoidable, you're making yourself guilty of a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. In a case where a practice, such as media framing, happens all the time, the burden falls on the person denying a case of framing.

Gracyk's Explanations of basic fallacies

Beware the fallacy of invincible ignorance.



You don't have to take my word for it. Try the respected source Eric Ostermeier (Ph.D.) of the University of Minnesota.

"The question is not whether PolitiFact will ultimately convert skeptics on the right that they do not have ulterior motives in the selection of what statements are rated, but whether the organization can give a convincing argument that either a) Republicans in fact do lie much more than Democrats, or b) if they do not, that it is immaterial that PolitiFact covers political discourse with a frame that suggests this is the case."
Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats - Smart Politics
Click to expand...

And that's a completely unbiased source? :lamo:lamo:lamo

They are not making much of a case about whether republicans lie more on not. They are giving report cards to specific organizations based solely on the issues brought to them. They have a clear disclaimer.
 
Ockham said:
Most liberal bias is by omission, not inclusion.
Click to expand...

Do you realize you just implied that when liberals speak, they usually speak the truth?
 
Phys251 said:
Do you realize you just implied that when liberals speak, they usually speak the truth?
Click to expand...

You are under the delusion that non-bias = truth. Bad assumption, but I'm sure many are truthful.
 
BWWzfc said:
You've got a story that helps you make sense of PolitiFact's findings. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong (I think we'd find the latter if we examine the facts), but none of it does much to explain why Harry Reid can say that a majority of five white men on the Supreme Court produced the Hobby Lobby decision and PolitiFact just doesn't care. If journalists view things as you do, wouldn't that make them that much more inclined to engage in an ideologically-tinged version of selection bias? Gotta stop those crazy conservative lies, right?
Click to expand...

Other than the occasional looney-tuner, have you ever heard anyone on the Right claim that the Right is perfect? Of course you haven't. By the same token, nobody on the Left has made such claims? Of course not.

BUT it is a logical mistake to think that each side is just as bad as the other. That is a patently false equivalency.

One side is significantly more likely than the other to believe:
- in creationism
- that evolution is a hoax
- that homosexuality is a choice
- that if more people had guns, society would be more peaceful
- that seven billion human beings operating a half billion cars pumping out twenty pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned can't possibly have an effect on our global climate.

If you'll check, the more religious an educational institution is, the more likely that institution is to teach creationism as scientific fact...and the more likely that institution is politically quite conservative.

In other words, one side is more likely than the other to buy into concepts that are demonstrably false. It is therefore quite likely, then, that those who believe that which is demonstrably false are more apt to elect those politicians who perpetuate those falsehoods...

...and so those politicians from that one side would be more likely to be judged as telling falsehoods than would be the politicians from the other side.

You can claim otherwise all you want, you can ask for scientific papers until the cows come home...but you know I'm right. You don't want for me to be right, and you'll certainly publicly deny it...but you know I'm right. And FYI, it's the required belief in demonstrably-false dogma that is one of the biggest reasons I left the GOP back in the early 90's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom