"Truth-O-Meter" ratings are subjective, coin-flips, etc.

In a separate thread in this subforum, mmi asked that I detail my claim that PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" ratings are admittedly, in the words of PolitiFact folks, subjective, coin-flips, etc.



Current editor Angie Drobnic Holan describes the objetive distinction between "False" and "Pants on Fire":

"(T)he line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other."

John Kroll, once of the Cleveland Plain Dealer (PolitiFact Ohio):

"Even if one could parse out the differences, the Truth-O-Meter mixed apples and oranges. Its ratings are a combination of both whether a statement is true and whether it was misleading. Where the balance between those two values was struck in picking a rating was crucial. And as far as I could tell, looking at PolitiFact ratings from the national site as well as local ones, the final choices were coin flips. Much-debated coin flips conducted by honest journalists trying to be fair — but coin flips, nonetheless."

Founding PolitiFact editor Bill Adair, on the "Lie of the Year": "Obviously it's subjective."

And doesn't this just confirm what's obvious from the structure of the ratings in the first place? The descriptions are rife with ambiguity. PolitiFact made a big deal of changing to "Mostly False" from "Barely True," but who remembers that PolitiFact changed the definition of "Half True" with no fanfare at all? It's not objective. Former PolitiFact researcher Lucas Graves discusses the subjectivity problem (with a dollop of positive spin) in "Deciding What's True: Fact-Checking Journalism and the New Ecology of News."

Search Results | Academic Commons

In other words, the ratings are not an exact science. Thanks for the useful information. I got a good laugh out of yer saying that you had them "on record basically admitting" something.

How does one produce objective ratings?

BWWzfc said:

In a separate thread in this subforum, mmi asked that I detail my claim that PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" ratings are admittedly, in the words of PolitiFact folks, subjective, coin-flips, etc.



Current editor Angie Drobnic Holan describes the objetive distinction between "False" and "Pants on Fire":

"(T)he line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other."

John Kroll, once of the Cleveland Plain Dealer (PolitiFact Ohio):

"Even if one could parse out the differences, the Truth-O-Meter mixed apples and oranges. Its ratings are a combination of both whether a statement is true and whether it was misleading. Where the balance between those two values was struck in picking a rating was crucial. And as far as I could tell, looking at PolitiFact ratings from the national site as well as local ones, the final choices were coin flips. Much-debated coin flips conducted by honest journalists trying to be fair — but coin flips, nonetheless."

Founding PolitiFact editor Bill Adair, on the "Lie of the Year": "Obviously it's subjective."

And doesn't this just confirm what's obvious from the structure of the ratings in the first place? The descriptions are rife with ambiguity. PolitiFact made a big deal of changing to "Mostly False" from "Barely True," but who remembers that PolitiFact changed the definition of "Half True" with no fanfare at all? It's not objective. Former PolitiFact researcher Lucas Graves discusses the subjectivity problem (with a dollop of positive spin) in "Deciding What's True: Fact-Checking Journalism and the New Ecology of News."

Search Results | Academic Commons

Click to expand...

If you are paying any attention to the ratings, you are doing it wrong. Take the two minutes, read the article. Take a couple more and chech their sources. Never depend on others to do your thinking for you.

Redress said:

If you are paying any attention to the ratings, you are doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'm doing it right. I recognize the ratings for what they are: The picture window into PolitiFact's ideological bias.

Take the two minutes, read the article. Take a couple more and chech their sources. Never depend on others to do your thinking for you.

Click to expand...

I routinely do detailed critiques of fact checks. I've probably done over a hundred detailed critiques of PolitiFact's fact checks. I find mistakes in their sourcing, failures to identify/disclose biased experts, apparently random (unless it's simply favoring the left) weighting of expert testimony, contradictory ratings, incorrectly performed mathematical operations and more.

PolitiFact can't be trusted. It's easily the worst of the big three so-called "elite" fact checkers. It's fair to call PolitiFact a disgrace.

mmi said:

In other words, the ratings are not an exact science.

Click to expand...

In other words, not a science at all. ;-)

Thanks for the useful information. I got a good laugh out of yer saying that you had them "on record basically admitting" something.

Click to expand...

Well, if they're not literally flipping a coin but instead relying on subjective impressions, then isn't that an indication of subjectivity? Or are you subjectively disinclined to admit it?

Here's betting you haven't read Graves' dissertation yet.

More:

PolitiFact Bias: The circus inside PolitiFact's "Star Chamber"

BWWzfc said:

On the contrary, I'm doing it right. I recognize the ratings for what they are: The picture window into PolitiFact's ideological bias.



I routinely do detailed critiques of fact checks. I've probably done over a hundred detailed critiques of PolitiFact's fact checks. I find mistakes in their sourcing, failures to identify/disclose biased experts, apparently random (unless it's simply favoring the left) weighting of expert testimony, contradictory ratings, incorrectly performed mathematical operations and more.

PolitiFact can't be trusted. It's easily the worst of the big three so-called "elite" fact checkers. It's fair to call PolitiFact a disgrace.

Click to expand...

Not agreeing with your ideological bias is not itself an ideological bias.

Redress said:

Not agreeing with your ideological bias is not itself an ideological bias.

Click to expand...

Comments like yours always leave me scratching my head. You think a contradictory rating by PolitiFact automatically reflects my bias? When they do math the wrong way it's just my bias?

It's fair to ask for examples (I've got 'em), but to simply mark these problems down to my bias (without even looking at specifics) is silly. Isn't it?

BWWzfc said:

In a separate thread in this subforum, mmi asked that I detail my claim that PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" ratings are admittedly, in the words of PolitiFact folks, subjective, coin-flips, etc.



Current editor Angie Drobnic Holan describes the objetive distinction between "False" and "Pants on Fire":

"(T)he line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other."

Click to expand...

"False" means they got it wrong, "pants on fire" means they're lying, right? That was my interpretation. Whether or not somebody is intentionally presenting untrue information is always going to be subjective unless you are omniscient. I think they try to get it right, but I'm sure there are examples of them getting it wrong. Nonetheless, Politifact is a fairly good starting point for looking over current talking points that have become hot button issues.

Grim posted an entire thread about the Clinton Foundation claim from Limbaugh which was rated "mostly false." I think he was trying to attack them but I read the article and anybody who read that article would be about a million times more knowledgeable about the Clinton Foundation than 99% of Limbaugh's listeners. What I'm saying is that Politifact may not be a great source of information, but you're better off reading their website than watching/listening to partisan "news."

Mustachio said:

"False" means they got it wrong, "pants on fire" means they're lying, right? That was my interpretation.

Click to expand...

That's the natural interpretation, given the flaming graphic they use to illustrate it, but that's not how PolitiFact defines it. "False" claims are untrue claims and "Pants on Fire" claims are untrue claims that are also ridiculous. Count me skeptical that there's an objective way to determine ridiculousness. ADH's description fits the definition pretty well, actually.

Whether or not somebody is intentionally presenting untrue information is always going to be subjective unless you are omniscient.

Click to expand...

PolitiFact denies that it passes judgment on intentional deceit (that is, intentionally presenting untrue information). So you're right, but it's only relevant if PolitiFact is lying about what it does.

I think they try to get it right, but I'm sure there are examples of them getting it wrong. Nonetheless, Politifact is a fairly good starting point for looking over current talking points that have become hot button issues.

Click to expand...

I agree that they try to get it right, but after that I can't agree with you. They're awful. Their system stinks and their staff isn't up to the task they've set for themselves. Journalists as a group aren't particularly well educated (and higher level journalism degrees apparently don't remedy the problem much at all). It's perfect storm for writers to overestimate their competence to pass judgment.

Grim posted an entire thread about the Clinton Foundation claim from Limbaugh which was rated "mostly false." I think he was trying to attack them but I read the article and anybody who read that article would be about a million times more knowledgeable about the Clinton Foundation than 99% of Limbaugh's listeners. What I'm saying is that Politifact may not be a great source of information, but you're better off reading their website than watching/listening to partisan "news."

Click to expand...

Could you set the bar any lower? ;-)

Television news, with a few exceptions, is terrible. In the print media we've experienced a breakdown of the objective reporting paradigm. Just about all we've got left is partisan news. PolitiFact is left-leaning partisan news journalists (the Tampa Times/St. Petersburg Times is renowned for its liberal editorial slant) trying to tell people what's true and what's not. They're not good at it.

I look at your OP & the three bolded items, and quite honestly it looks to me like you have an agenda and are grasping at straws & attempting lack of context to pull it off.

BWWzfc said:

"(T)he line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other."

Click to expand...

Of course - Both ratings reflect the same result (False) but one implies bare-faced lying - it can't always be easily ascertained if a person is wrong or has lied. "Sometimes one way or the other" - it's what they do (they decide)

"Even if one could parse out the differences, the Truth-O-Meter mixed apples and oranges. Its ratings are a combination of both whether a statement is true and whether it was misleading. Where the balance between those two values was struck in picking a rating was crucial. And as far as I could tell, looking at PolitiFact ratings from the national site as well as local ones, the final choices were coin flips. Much-debated coin flips conducted by honest journalists trying to be fair — but coin flips, nonetheless."

Click to expand...

There's six degrees of rating - things can't fall on the cusp of two ratings?

Founding PolitiFact editor Bill Adair, on the "Lie of the Year": "Obviously it's subjective."

Click to expand...

You really expect something like "Lie of the Year" to be a quantifiable? - You're playing us!

"What's the best song of thew year?"

Comon' buddy, better get it right or you've lost all credibility.

Anyway, I know there's no way you believe what you wrote (neither does anyone in the thread), so why insult our intelligence?

BWWzfc said:

Well, if they're not literally flipping a coin but instead relying on subjective impressions, then isn't that an indication of subjectivity? Or are you subjectively disinclined to admit it?

Click to expand...

I think I smell straw. Could there be a third option beyond coin-tossing and subjective impression? How about best judgement based on the evidence? You seem to set yerself up as somehow impartial. Do you expect people to believe that yer analyses of PolitiFact's work aren't affected by yer own "subjective impressions"?

>>Here's betting you haven't read Graves' dissertation yet.

I'll put it right at the top of my to-do list.

BWWzfc said:

When they do math the wrong way it's just my bias?

Click to expand...

Something tells me yer not just focused on mathematical errors.

>>to simply mark these problems down to my bias (without even looking at specifics) is silly.

About as silly as believing that that yer own bias doesn't affect yer analyses. I'd say I've seen it myself in the way you talk about the Clinton Foundation.

BWWzfc said:

They're awful. Their system stinks and their staff isn't up to the task they've set for themselves.

Click to expand...

Do you know these people?

>>Journalists as a group aren't particularly well educated … [they] overestimate their competence to pass judgment.

What's yer profession? If yer a journalist, are you therefore subject to the same weakness?

>>Television news, with a few exceptions, is terrible.

What's the exception? Judge Jeanine?

>>In the print media we've experienced a breakdown of the objective reporting paradigm. Just about all we've got left is partisan news.

I'd say that's very much overstated.

BWWzfc said:

PolitiFact can't be trusted. It's easily the worst of the big three so-called "elite" fact checkers. It's fair to call PolitiFact a disgrace.

Click to expand...

Gee, you don't like them, do ya? "Disgraceful." "Untrustworthy." Funny how they have a pretty strong reputation.

I have no doubt that you have found flaws in their work. You seem like an intelligent, detail-oriented fellow. I've seen liiibruls complain at times about PolitiFact's work. Do you investigate those claims? Are you as enthusiastic about defending those on the Left from inaccurate reports as you are those on the Right?

Finally, you said that you've "probably done over a hundred detailed critiques of PolitiFact's fact checks." That sounds like a lot of work. Is this a hobby, or are you, I dunno, perhaps a not-so-bright-fart employee or some such? Did you apply for a job at PolitiFact and get rejected?

mmi said:

I think I smell straw. Could there be a third option beyond coin-tossing and subjective impression? How about best judgement based on the evidence? You seem to set yerself up as somehow impartial. Do you expect people to believe that yer analyses of PolitiFact's work aren't affected by yer own "subjective impressions"?

>>Here's betting you haven't read Graves' dissertation yet.

I'll put it right at the top of my to-do list.



Something tells me yer not just focused on mathematical errors.

>>to simply mark these problems down to my bias (without even looking at specifics) is silly.

About as silly as believing that that yer own bias doesn't affect yer analyses. I'd say I've seen it myself in the way you talk about the Clinton Foundation.



Do you know these people?

>>Journalists as a group aren't particularly well educated … [they] overestimate their competence to pass judgment.

What's yer profession? If yer a journalist, are you therefore subject to the same weakness?

>>Television news, with a few exceptions, is terrible.

What's the exception? Judge Jeanine?

>>In the print media we've experienced a breakdown of the objective reporting paradigm. Just about all we've got left is partisan news.

I'd say that's very much overstated.



Gee, you don't like them, do ya? "Disgraceful." "Untrustworthy." Funny how they have a pretty strong reputation.

I have no doubt that you have found flaws in their work. You seem like an intelligent, detail-oriented fellow. I've seen liiibruls complain at times about PolitiFact's work. Do you investigate those claims? Are you as enthusiastic about defending those on the Left from inaccurate reports as you are those on the Right?

Finally, you said that you've "probably done over a hundred detailed critiques of PolitiFact's fact checks." That sounds like a lot of work. Is this a hobby, or are you, I dunno, perhaps a not-so-bright-fart employee or some such? Did you apply for a job at PolitiFact and get rejected?

Click to expand...

Do you think it is a coincidence the Tampa Bay Times/Politifact is published by the Liberal/Progressive Poynter Institute? Do you think there is any coincidence the Poynter Institute is heavily funded and influenced by some of the most active and radical Progressive organizations like Soro's Open Society Institute, the Knight Foundation, and others?

Do you think these affiliations may influence Politifact's mission, given the evidence of subjectivity admitted by those involved with it's rankings?

ocean515 said:

the evidence of subjectivity admitted by those involved with it's rankings

Click to expand...

"Evidence of subjectivity admitted"? Common sense dictates that there is some level of subjectivity involved in choosing a rating. As has been noted by others, it's the content of the analysis that is important, not the call on how to classify it.

The simple truth is that the GOP is today dominated by people pretty far out on the Right, and they lie/dissemble/manipulate/deceive/mislead/etc at a much higher rate than Democrats. And they get called out on it. That's the way it goes.

>>Soro's Open Society Institute

I'm glad Kobie's not around at the moment. I don't drink this early in the morning.

mmi said:

"Evidence of subjectivity admitted"? Common sense dictates that there is some level of subjectivity involved in choosing a rating. As has been noted by others, it's the content of the analysis that is important, not the call on how to classify it.

The simple truth is that the GOP is today dominated by people pretty far out on the Right, and they lie/dissemble/manipulate/deceive/mislead/etc at a much higher rate than Democrats. And they get called out on it. That's the way it goes.

>>Soro's Open Society Institute

I'm glad Kobie's not around at the moment. I don't drink this early in the morning.

Click to expand...

LOL.

I'm sure their target audience drinks up every "subjective fact" they've designed their propaganda wing to mix for you.

The simple truth is, and you avoided comment on, politifact is a political operative site with an agenda. It's part of the "legitimize" disinformation narrative that makes the Progressive Machine so effective among those it has captured with it's message.

As to Kobie, who cares where he is. Do you need support and backup for your "augments"?

Chomsky said:

I look at your OP & the three bolded items, and quite honestly it looks to me like you have an agenda and are grasping at straws & attempting lack of context to pull it off.

Of course - Both ratings reflect the same result (False) but one implies bare-faced lying - it can't always be easily ascertained if a person is wrong or has lied. "Sometimes one way or the other" - it's what they do (they decide)

Click to expand...

I've been over this before, but I'll provide you the documentation to that you can begin to pay attention. PolitiFact absolutely denies calling anybody a liar. It may well be your impression that "Pants on Fire" means PolitiFact is calling somebody a liar, but PolitiFact has never defined the rating that way. You're applying your own made-up context to the term and on that basis claiming I'm misleading people. That's disgraceful on your part.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ples-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/

"The meter has six ratings, in decreasing level of truthfulness:

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.

MOSTLY FALSE – 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."

There's six degrees of rating - things can't fall on the cusp of two ratings?

Click to expand...

Of course they can. But if you're trying to say it's like rounding up or down from 1.49 or 1.51 to either 1 or 2, I have to point you again to what I've already written: The rating system uses fairly ambiguous definitions. Pretty much the entire spectrum is cusp. So, yeah, I concede your point and then some: The ratings are on the cusp. Pretty much every one of them. Look at the rating definitions again. Look at them. Read them.

You really expect something like "Lie of the Year" to be a quantifiable? - You're playing us!

Click to expand...

Hallelujah if you're one of the gifted few who sees that as clearly as I do. Now ask yourself why a "fact checker" would engage in such obvious editorializing without clearly labeling it as such.

"What's the best song of thew year?"

Comon' buddy, better get it right or you've lost all credibility.

Click to expand...

I'm so obviously right that I lose credibility? How's that supposed to work?

Anyway, I know there's no way you believe what you wrote (neither does anyone in the thread), so why insult our intelligence?

Click to expand...

If you're going to conclude with a sentence like that, wouldn't it be a good idea to identify something I wrote that's false? Something false that I believe despite its silliness?

ocean515 said:

The simple truth is, and you avoided comment on, politifact is a political operative site with an agenda.

Click to expand...

I'll repeat a previous comment:

mmi said:

Funny how they have a pretty strong reputation.

Click to expand...

>>It's part of the "legitimize" disinformation narrative that makes the Progressive Machine so effective among those it has captured with it's message.

They sure fooled a lot of people. But not you right-wingers!

>>Do you need support and backup for your "augments"?

I don't mind having it. But in this particular context, it's stupid of you to suggest that.

mmi said:

I think I smell straw.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the place where you've buried your head in the sand is covered with a layer of straw?

Could there be a third option beyond coin-tossing and subjective impression? How about best judgement based on the evidence?

Click to expand...

You're saying a newspaperman once associated with PolitiFact Ohio would use "coin flips" to describe "best judgment based on the evidence"? I suggest you think about what you're suggesting.

You seem to set yerself up as somehow impartial.

Click to expand...

Nobody's impartial, but my partiality (PolitiFact's too) is completely irrelevant unless you find it expressed in my argument. Best of luck with that. I've found PolitiFact's partiality in its work, btw. When it calculates percentage error (there are two ways to do it, a right way and a wrong way) the results strongly tend to favor liberals. That's certainly not the only evidence, but it's one of the ones most clearly demonstrated.

Do you expect people to believe that yer analyses of PolitiFact's work aren't affected by yer own "subjective impressions"?

Click to expand...

No, I think many liberals automatically assume that my analysis is automatically wrong because of conservative bias. But you're smart enough to see how stupid that is, right?

Something tells me yer not just focused on mathematical errors.

Click to expand...

So sue me. Inconsistency is fair game in areas other than math.

>>to simply mark these problems down to my bias (without even looking at specifics) is silly.

About as silly as believing that that yer own bias doesn't affect yer analyses. I'd say I've seen it myself in the way you talk about the Clinton Foundation.

Click to expand...

PolitiFact's founding editor Bill Adair kept a cardboard President Obama cutout in his office. PolitiFact's great. But you can dismiss what I write because I'm biased. And it's a good thing you're not biased, right?

One more time: Bias is irrelevant unless it creeps into the analysis. "The way you talk about the Clinton Foundation" isn't an evidence of anything. If you had something specific in mind that we could analyze for bias, then maybe yeah. So don't take the cheap and easy way out with broad accusations. Do what I do with PolitiFact: Use concrete examples that are hard to dispute.

Do you know these people?

Click to expand...

I do, and I'm one of them. And in journalism school I had staffers from the St. Petersburg (now Tampa) Times as instructors and classmates. The Times owns and runs PolitiFact. At colleges and universities, journalism and education students are considered the lower strata. The perception isn't entirely without merit. Journalism is attractive to students who are poor at math, for example.

What's yer profession? If yer a journalist, are you therefore subject to the same weakness?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, at least potentially. On the other hand, I have a great deal more education in science and philosophy than the typical journalist. That's not a silver cross warding off the vampire of unwarranted self-esteem, of course. But I've known for years that there's really only one way to avoid the problem: Have an idea of what you know and what you don't know and avoid pontificating overmuch on the latter.

What's the exception? Judge Jeanine?

Click to expand...

Jake Tapper's good, and Megyn whassername on Fox does great interviews. Tough on everyone. Not that I waste enough time watching television news to offer a thorough assessment. It's just that I know it's not 100 percent awful.

I'd say that's very much overstated.

Click to expand...

Do you have any reasoning in support of your opinion? Here's mine: You've suggested that you can throw out what I say because of my bias. Yet newspaper journalists are among the most ideological of all professions. Surveys show that journalists, compared to the general population, lean strongly left. Is there some concrete reason you believe that journalists' biases do not affect their work (except for mine, of course!)?

(this is a part two post, as I've run over on length and I don't have the time for the needed edit. If this runs against forum policy I'll accept the reprimand and other consequences. My apologies if necessary)

Gee, you don't like them, do ya? "Disgraceful." "Untrustworthy." Funny how they have a pretty strong reputation.

Click to expand...

I've got nothing personal against the folks who run PolitiFact. It's likely PolitiFact has the worst reputation among the three major mainstream fact checkers. There's a job for a pollster (you could use a poll to support your statement about their "pretty strong reputation" as well). My complaint about PolitiFact is based solely on the quality of its work, which is poor and often misleading.

I have no doubt that you have found flaws in their work. You seem like an intelligent, detail-oriented fellow. I've seen liiibruls complain at times about PolitiFact's work. Do you investigate those claims?

Click to expand...

Sure. I've even defended President Obama from a charge that all three mainstream fact checkers leveled at him. That was when they piled on the administration when Obama was trying to explain the insurance cancellation problem starting with the phrase "What we said was." All three of the big three took the phrase to mean he was, in effect, rewriting what he had said. But the administration gave a sound explanation for it that the fact checkers essentially discarded without argument. As for PolitiFact complaints from liberals, the quality is fairly low for most of them. The problem is they're pointing out stuff PolitiFact does routinely, particularly to conservatives, but when it happens to conservatives there's rarely a complaint from the left.

Are you as enthusiastic about defending those on the Left from inaccurate reports as you are those on the Right?

Click to expand...

I dunno. I defend based on my perception of the depth of the problem. I defended Bernie Sanders from PolitiFact a couple of weeks ago, then turned around an fact checked a questionable statement from Bernie that the mainstreamers were ignoring. I think it's objectively true that conservatives draw more dire unfair harm from PolitiFact than liberals. Plus liberal bloggers aren't shy about defending their own from PolitiFact. To some extent it comes down to carving out a niche. I try to work on stuff that nobody else is addressing.

Finally, you said that you've "probably done over a hundred detailed critiques of PolitiFact's fact checks." That sounds like a lot of work. Is this a hobby, or are you, I dunno, perhaps a not-so-bright-fart employee or some such? Did you apply for a job at PolitiFact and get rejected?

Click to expand...

I don't think "hobby" is quite the right word for it. It's important work that I enjoy and do in my spare time. I've never applied for any job with the Times or its affiliated entities.

BWWzfc said:

In a separate thread in this subforum, mmi asked that I detail my claim that PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" ratings are admittedly, in the words of PolitiFact folks, subjective, coin-flips, etc.



Current editor Angie Drobnic Holan describes the objetive distinction between "False" and "Pants on Fire":

"(T)he line between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is just, you know, sometimes we decide one way and sometimes decide the other."

John Kroll, once of the Cleveland Plain Dealer (PolitiFact Ohio):

"Even if one could parse out the differences, the Truth-O-Meter mixed apples and oranges. Its ratings are a combination of both whether a statement is true and whether it was misleading. Where the balance between those two values was struck in picking a rating was crucial. And as far as I could tell, looking at PolitiFact ratings from the national site as well as local ones, the final choices were coin flips. Much-debated coin flips conducted by honest journalists trying to be fair — but coin flips, nonetheless."

Founding PolitiFact editor Bill Adair, on the "Lie of the Year": "Obviously it's subjective."

And doesn't this just confirm what's obvious from the structure of the ratings in the first place? The descriptions are rife with ambiguity. PolitiFact made a big deal of changing to "Mostly False" from "Barely True," but who remembers that PolitiFact changed the definition of "Half True" with no fanfare at all? It's not objective. Former PolitiFact researcher Lucas Graves discusses the subjectivity problem (with a dollop of positive spin) in "Deciding What's True: Fact-Checking Journalism and the New Ecology of News."

Search Results | Academic Commons

Click to expand...

Yes, politifact is not entirely accurate but who on earth is? Their conclusions are well-researched and transparent to read. They have done this nation a public service by making politicians accountable for the things they say. Don't blindly trust is their motto and they themselves support critical feedback of their own reviews and looking at other sources as well.

I don't see why you hate them. Maybe it is because of the way they have exposed conservative politicians. Fun fact, they also expose liberal politicians as well. Politifact has given Obama's statements they have reviewed a 47% true or mostly true rate. Obama's controversial statements are less accurate than a coin toss.
Barack Obama's file | PolitiFact

BWWzfc said:

I've been over this before, but I'll provide you the documentation to that you can begin to pay attention. PolitiFact absolutely denies calling anybody a liar. It may well be your impression that "Pants on Fire" means PolitiFact is calling somebody a liar, but PolitiFact has never defined the rating that way. You're applying your own made-up context to the term and on that basis claiming I'm misleading people. That's disgraceful on your part.

The Principles of PolitiFact, PunditFact and the Truth-O-Meter | PolitiFact

"The meter has six ratings, in decreasing level of truthfulness:

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.

MOSTLY FALSE – 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."



Of course they can. But if you're trying to say it's like rounding up or down from 1.49 or 1.51 to either 1 or 2, I have to point you again to what I've already written: The rating system uses fairly ambiguous definitions. Pretty much the entire spectrum is cusp. So, yeah, I concede your point and then some: The ratings are on the cusp. Pretty much every one of them. Look at the rating definitions again. Look at them. Read them.



Hallelujah if you're one of the gifted few who sees that as clearly as I do. Now ask yourself why a "fact checker" would engage in such obvious editorializing without clearly labeling it as such.



I'm so obviously right that I lose credibility? How's that supposed to work?



If you're going to conclude with a sentence like that, wouldn't it be a good idea to identify something I wrote that's false? Something false that I believe despite its silliness?

Click to expand...

Needless to say, I disagree with virtually everything you wrote - and with this much disagreement, it seems pretty futile to attempt to reconcile.

But I'll touch on some salient points:

1 - To say a point is "ridiculous" is a euphemism for "lie" essentially, and everyone else here seems to get it - when was the last time you heard, "Ridiculous, ridiculous, pants on fire"?

2 - There may be minor nuances between levels, but the dichotomic differences between 'true' & 'false' or 'true' & 'pants on fire', are easily discernible to all.

3 - With "Lie of the year" you're attempting to discredit PF's entire credibility based upon their attempting to pick an example of 'the worst of the worst' , w/o your acknowledging the items being discussed are in the extreme highest deceit potential - all the candidates are so bad as to be beyond reproach.

4 - I stand by my closing statement - as to identifying where you're "false", pretty much your entire post(s) qualify(s), as even when you claim to technically agree or show technical error in other's posts, you attempt to obfuscate the bigger reality.

It appears to me you're arguing for arguing's sake here, to be honest.

Addendum: I wish could get PolitiFact to vett your posts! :mrgreen:

Chomsky said:

"ridiculous" is a euphemism for "lie"

Click to expand...

I think the idea here is that PolitiFact isn't saying that a person "lied" in the sense of being deliberate. E.g., I could say that a cap-and-trade policy on pollutive emissions will certainly wreck the US economy. That may or may not be a ridiculous claim, but even it is is, I'm not necessarily lying if I put that forward — I could believe it to be true.

mmi said:

I'll repeat a previous comment:



>>It's part of the "legitimize" disinformation narrative that makes the Progressive Machine so effective among those it has captured with it's message.

They sure fooled a lot of people. But not you right-wingers!

>>Do you need support and backup for your "augments"?

I don't mind having it. But in this particular context, it's stupid of you to suggest that.

Click to expand...

It's not stupid of me to suggest it, it's stupid of you to bring it up in the first place.

These politifact operations are what they are, and if you want to ignore their own admissions, that's fine. Again, the strong reputation is exactly what they count on among those who can't, or won't, do the research themselves. Rather an important feature Progressives count on.

mmi said:

I think the idea here is that PolitiFact isn't saying that a person "lied" in the sense of being deliberate. E.g., I could say that a cap-and-trade policy on pollutive emissions will certainly wreck the US economy. That may or may not be a ridiculous claim, but even it is is, I'm not necessarily lying if I put that forward — I could believe it to be true.

Click to expand...

I don't know, mmi.

The only 'pants on fire' phrase that I'm aware of, is associated with the nursery rhyme - it would seem odd they would use that unusual phrase in any other context, IMO.

ocean515 said:

It's not stupid of me to suggest it, it's stupid of you to bring it up in the first place.

Click to expand...

Gee, I thought it was funny. Well, maybe a little. I guess we see these things differently.

>>These politifact operations are what they are

I agree!

>>if you want to ignore their own admissions, that's fine.

Admissions?

>>the strong reputation is exactly what they count on among those who can't, or won't, do the research themselves.

I'd say the strong reputation is earned. People who do the research themselves are the ones who have conveyed it.

>>Rather an important feature Progressives count on.

I hear this a lot. I think it's funny. It's classic echo chamber stuff. Or to put it crudely, a right-wing, circle jerk meme. "Liiibruls are sheep." This stuff is why the Right makes it almost impossible for a Republican to win the White House. So, please, don't stop.

Chomsky said:

it would seem odd they would use that unusual phrase in any other context, IMO.

Click to expand...

You may have a point. This would seem to validate BWW's argument about "the flaming graphic they use to illustrate it," an element of the "picture window into PolitiFact's ideological bias." I see it more as a way to draw in viewers. BWW might even agree with that, but then see it as inappropriate.