Redactors Does An Analysis Of Politifacts.com

[umbrella39]

So much buttsore... so little Boudreaux's...

 

[realibrad]

Here's one example where I think Politifact totally screwed Republicans. The GOP made a completely true statement and Politifact somehow twisted it into Half-True. Wow. Just wow.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...op-claims-sherrod-brown-special-interest-all/

Your link is a pretty bullshit situation. Saying that money spent by the political part is the same as spending by the candidate is stupid.

 

[jackstar7]

I gave you the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way...you chose not to and resorted to deprecation instead. I see no value in wasting any more of my time attempting to have a relatively civil conversation with you.

You never had any interest in doing so.

Your level of disingenuous behavior on display in this thread is fascinating. You should really take some time and reflect upon it.

You know what's telling? All the people you actively ignored in this thread so you could continue to dick around with me.

Top-level fuckery there, sir.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your link is a pretty bullshit situation. Saying that money spent by the political part is the same as spending by the candidate is stupid.

Who said that the political part is the same as spending by the candidate? This is the statement..."Sherrod Brown and his special interest allies in Washington are plotting to spend over $13 million, with no end in sight." Are you saying that the political part spending is not coming from his allies? Really? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You never had any interest in doing so.

Your level of disingenuous behavior on display in this thread is fascinating. You should really take some time and reflect upon it.

You know what's telling? All the people you actively ignored in this thread so you could continue to dick around with me.

Top-level fuckery there, sir.

Lesson learned.

 

[shira]

Here's one example where I think Politifact totally screwed Republicans. The GOP made a completely true statement and Politifact somehow twisted it into Half-True. Wow. Just wow.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...op-claims-sherrod-brown-special-interest-all/

I don't agree at all. The dispute between the campaigns was on the question of outside spending. The Democratic spokesperson accurately stated that the Republican was spending $10.5 million in outside money against the Democrat, Brown. And the the Ohio GOP responded:

"Redfern is the least credible person to be commenting on outside spending when it comes to Ohio’s U.S. Senate race. Sherrod Brown and his special interest allies in Washington are plotting to spend over $13 million, with no end in sight."

The CLEAR implication of that quote is that Brown was using $13 million in outside money, when the true figure is $2.4 million. If you REALLY think that HIGHLY misleading statement is "completely true", then I really, really question your notion of "truth." And even that statement got only a "half truth" ding, because Politifact gave the Ohio GOP "credit" for the fact that TOTAL spending (including $10.6 million of "inside" spending) was $13 million.

Compare that evaluation with the one that Wolfe9998 posted. That statement by Sanders, which I would rate "mostly true" was rated "false" by Politifact.

I think Politifact's evaluation of Sanders' statement is much less accurate than that of the Ohio GOP's statement.

Let me turn this around: How can a statement that is highly misleading be considered "completely true?" The answer is: It can't be.

 

[realibrad]

Who said that the political part is the same as spending by the candidate? This is the statement..."Sherrod Brown and his special interest allies in Washington are plotting to spend over $13 million, with no end in sight." Are you saying that the political part spending is not coming from his allies? Really? Or am I misunderstanding you?

From the link...

"Some people divide the campaign finance world into parts – candidate spending and everything else (‘outside spending’)," Briffault wrote in an e-mail. "Other people divide the campaign finance world into three parts – campaign spending, party spending in support of that party’s candidates, and spending by all other groups (‘outside spending’).

That is some bullshit there. But, you are showing exactly the problem. I am on your side that politifact was wrong here. I pointed out something I felt was wrong, but you seem to believe I am supporting them here. Yes, you are misunderstanding my position. The quote was 100% true. They tried to say that the response was implying it was only about outside spending and it was clearly not. It was an attempt to twist the quote.

 

[realibrad]

I don't agree at all. The dispute between the campaigns was on the question of outside spending. The Democratic spokesperson accurately stated that the Republican was spending $10.5 million in outside money against the Democrat, Brown. And the the Ohio GOP responded:


The CLEAR implication of that quote is that Brown was using $13 million in outside money, when the true figure is $2.4 million. If you REALLY think that HIGHLY misleading statement is "completely true", then I really, really question your notion of "truth." And even that statement got only a "half truth" ding, because Politifact gave the Ohio GOP "credit" for the fact that TOTAL spending (including $10.6 million of "inside" spending) was $13 million.

Compare that evaluation with the one that Wolfe9998 posted. That statement by Sanders, which I would rate "mostly true" was rated "false" by Politifact.

I think Politifact's evaluation of Sanders' statement is much less accurate than that of the Ohio GOP's statement.

Let me turn this around: How can a statement that is highly misleading be considered "completely true?" The answer is: It can't be.

I completely disagree. English can be tricky.

Sherrod Brown and his special interest allies in Washington are plotting to spend over $13 million

If it had said "with" instead of "and" I could see your point. I think the point the person was trying to make was that the other side was spending vast amounts of money to try to smear their side too. The statement is 100% fully correct no questions asked.

None of that means that politifact is too biased to be used though.

 

[MongGrel]

Lesson learned.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Having an Albert Einstein quote in you're signature does not make you brilliant.

Considering some things you say it probably makes you a bit of a hypocrite I would think.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't agree at all. The dispute between the campaigns was on the question of outside spending. The Democratic spokesperson accurately stated that the Republican was spending $10.5 million in outside money against the Democrat, Brown. And the the Ohio GOP responded:


The CLEAR implication of that quote is that Brown was using $13 million in outside money, when the true figure is $2.4 million. If you REALLY think that HIGHLY misleading statement is "completely true", then I really, really question your notion of "truth." And even that statement got only a "half truth" ding, because Politifact gave the Ohio GOP "credit" for the fact that TOTAL spending (including $10.6 million of "inside" spending) was $13 million.

Compare that evaluation with the one that Wolfe9998 posted. That statement by Sanders, which I would rate "mostly true" was rated "false" by Politifact.

I think Politifact's evaluation of Sanders' statement is much less accurate than that of the Ohio GOP's statement.

Let me turn this around: How can a statement that is highly misleading be considered "completely true?" The answer is: It can't be.

The operative word here is "and". He said “Brown and his special interest allies,” he never said solely “outside money.” The statement is literally true...no matter how one attempts to twist it into something he didn't say. This type of mental gymnastic is referred to as the begging the question fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_a_question

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within a premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 

[MongGrel]

You really have no operative words.

You should work on that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If it had said "with" instead of "and" I could see your point. I think the point the person was trying to make was that the other side was spending vast amounts of money to try to smear their side too. The statement is 100% fully correct no questions asked.

None of that means that politifact is too biased to be used though.

Agree. I like the site as well and use it often.

 

[shira]

The operative word here is "and". He said “Brown and his special interest allies,” he never said solely “outside money.” The statement is literally true...no matter how one attempts to twist it into something he didn't say. This type of mental gymnastic is referred to as the begging the question fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_a_question

You're just playing games now, claiming that a statement CLEARLY intended to mislead is "completely accurate."

Consider the following statement by a hospital customer care person:

Mister Jones, I know that you're very worried about surgery to replace your heart valve, and you're debating whether to have your surgery here at Reliable Health Hospital or at our competitor, Acme Health Services. In making your decision, I think you should know that at Acme, the death rate for patients having heart valve surgery is 20%. But at Reliable, over 99% of our surgical patients survive.

Suppose that Acme's death rate from heart valve surgery is in fact 20%, and Reliable's death rate for that surgery is 30%. And suppose that Reliable's overall surgical survival rate is 99.1%.

Would you rate this statement "completely accurate?"

Now suppose it's your father who died after hearing that statement and deciding to receive that surgery at Reliable. Would you be at all upset with Reliable?

 

[MongGrel]

You're just playing games now

He always is.

Somehow I imagine the physique is way off.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're just playing games now, claiming that a statement CLEARLY intended to mislead is "completely accurate."

Consider the following statement by a hospital customer care person:



Suppose that Acme's death rate from heart valve surgery is in fact 20%, and Reliable's death rate for that surgery is 30%. And suppose that Reliable's overall surgical survival rate is 99.1%.

Would you rate this statement "completely accurate?"

Horrible, horrible analogy. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Don't want to see you hurt yourself!

 

[shira]

Horrible, horrible analogy. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Don't want to see you hurt yourself!

Why am I not surprised by your response?

A statement that is intended to mislead is not by any measure "completely accurate." And when you're not trying to defend your untenable position, you can acknowledge to yourself that what I'm saying is "completely accurate."

 

[MongGrel]

Horrible, horrible analogy. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Don't want to see you hurt yourself!

 

[Moonbeam]

I think when you say "we do not always have a solid wall up" you're correct, but the finer point was already stated by Shira. I characterized it as showing rather than telling. Our walls may be down when something is shown to us without being presented as an argument. My observation is that this is most often the case when what we are shown produces an emotional reaction. For example, in the wake of Sandy Hook some people might have been persuaded to favor certain gun control measures they would not otherwise have favored. But then the liberals used Sandy Hook to explicitly argue for gun control, which ironically had the opposite effect of polarizing those against gun control. The incident itself may have been persuasive, but the argument flowing from it may have been counter-productive.

What I find frustrating is that an anecdotal incident which produces an emotional reaction is not a valid reason for changing policy. The valid reason would be actual data which shows that the policy should be changed because doing so would have a positive effect. But any attempt to present the issue in this manner will ironically have the opposite effect.



I don't honestly know about this. If people are undergoing some kind of spiritual development, increasing their "capacity to love," that should signal something more general than a shift in a particular issue like gay marriage. However, in the given case, a person may become more tolerant of say, gays, but less tolerant of another group, say Muslims. There's no reason to assume that people in general have undergone any sort of spiritual enlightenment during the period of time in which support for gay marriage increased. It's more likely to do with factors particular to the perception of gays than it is a more general shift in our world view.

The constitution says were all equal. The struggle for blacks, women, gays, transgendered, etc. is hard won and evolving. Do you think we will go back to a more freedom restricted state? Spiritual evolution may meander but vertically. We are going up.

We create what we fear. In the absence of fear we see what is as our fear creations lose the impetus for their reality. There is no fear in the mind that is empty for in the empty mind there is no ego.

 

[shira]

Here's a rough cut at how I'd evaluate political statements for truthfulness. In my opinion, the important elements are

• the context (does the context of the statement match what a typical "consumer" of the statement would reasonably expect?)
• the correctness of the information (are numbers and other statements of fact objectively accurate and do they mean what a typical consumer would think they mean?)
• the intent (does the statement intend to enlighten or mislead the consumer?)

I acknowledge that there's a subjective aspect to evaluating each of these elements. But when one puts it all together I think the following is how I would rate political statements:

• Completely true: The context, the specific factual information, and the "spirit" of the statement are entirely correct, and a typical consumer of the statement would not be mislead at all by the information.
• Mostly true: Some aspects of the statement might lead a typical consumer of the statement to be slightly misled, but the essential context and factual information is correct.
• Half-true: A typical consumer of the statement would be somewhat misled, although there are significant contextual and factual elements of the statement that are correct.
• Mostly false: A typical consumer of the statement would be highly misled, and any factually accurate aspect of the statement is irrelevant to the statement's clear intent to mislead.
• Pants on Fire: The statement is almost entirely false and would completely mislead most people.

For example, suppose an ad showed a video of Obama saying

"I believe we should open our borders to illegal immigrants."

but the full statement was

"I certainly wouldn't say that I believe we should open our borders to illegal immigrants, but I do believe we need to come up with a constructive, compassionate plan to deal with the law-abiding illegal immigrants who have been here for years."

The shortened quotation is a gross distortion, wildly out of context, of the actual statement, obviously intended to hugely mislead those it's presented to. So I'd rate it "Pants on Fire" false, even though it might have been a part of an actual statement.

 

[Newell Steamer]

TIL Doc Savage Fan truly is a raging moron. Contained and rationed rage, but moron nonetheless.

And, it's a shame really, because out of all the Righties on these forums, I actually had a sliver of respect for him. A sliver, albeit quite strong.

Turns out, it was a cobweb.

R.I.P AT P&N Conservatives - Your Great Right Hope Has Passed,.. Away.

 

[Greenman]

TIL Doc Savage Fan truly is a raging moron. Contained and rationed rage, but moron nonetheless.

And, it's a shame really, because out of all the Righties on these forums, I actually had a sliver of respect for him. A sliver, albeit quite strong.

Turns out, it was a cobweb.

R.I.P AT P&N Conservatives - Your Great Right Hope Has Passed,.. Away.

I'm sure he's devastated over the loss of your acceptance.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I'm sure he's devastated over the loss of your acceptance.

Obvious point is obvious,.. obviously.

 

[woolfe9998]

Here's a rough cut at how I'd evaluate political statements for truthfulness. In my opinion, the important elements are

• the context (does the context of the statement match what a typical "consumer" of the statement would reasonably expect?)
• the correctness of the information (are numbers and other statements of fact objectively accurate and do they mean what a typical consumer would think they mean?)
• the intent (does the statement intend to enlighten or mislead the consumer?)

I acknowledge that there's a subjective aspect to evaluating each of these elements. But when one puts it all together I think the following is how I would rate political statements:

• Completely true: The context, the specific factual information, and the "spirit" of the statement are entirely correct, and a typical consumer of the statement would not be mislead at all by the information.
• Mostly true: Some aspects of the statement might lead a typical consumer of the statement to be slightly misled, but the essential context and factual information is correct.
• Half-true: A typical consumer of the statement would be somewhat misled, although there are significant contextual and factual elements of the statement that are correct.
• Mostly false: A typical consumer of the statement would be highly misled, and any factually accurate aspect of the statement is irrelevant to the statement's clear intent to mislead.
• Pants on Fire: The statement is almost entirely false and would completely mislead most people.

For example, suppose an ad showed a video of Obama saying

"I believe we should open our borders to illegal immigrants."

but the full statement was

"I certainly wouldn't say that I believe we should open our borders to illegal immigrants, but I do believe we need to come up with a constructive, compassionate plan to deal with the law-abiding illegal immigrants who have been here for years."

The shortened quotation is a gross distortion, wildly out of context, of the actual statement, obviously intended to hugely mislead those it's presented to. So I'd rate it "Pants on Fire" false, even though it might have been a part of an actual statement.

I think that's pretty sound. I would start with the literal correctness of the information as a baseline, then look at context and intent in order to clarify. So, in the Sanders example, his information is incorrect by a fair margin (we spend 50% more than Norway, not 100%). But in context, he's arguing for a national healthcare system, and in that context, it doesn't really matter whether it's double the second highest or double the average because in either scenario it's an enormous discrepancy. The true facts support his argument just as well. And anyone listening comes away with the correct general perception that we spend way more than any other country. I infer intent here from the latter: he was probably just being sloppy because he doesn't need this exaggeration to support his argument since the true numbers serve just as well.

It's instructive to contrast this with the Rubio comment I linked. There, we also have a significant discrepancy in the numbers (40% vs. 16% max). But there's another problem - in context, his statement meant to imply that Dodd Frank had caused these closures, when in fact there are several other possible causes. So Rubio's statement may have misled as to core issue, while Sanders' statement was correct as to its basic point.

For the record, I thought their rating of mostly false was correct for Rubio. Sanders' remark I would have put at half true. It's close to mostly true but the numeric discrepancy is too much for that IMO. I guess that's where subjectivity comes in.

 

[Jhhnn]

Politifacts chooses which stories to claim are true or false. Just by the simple fact they pick stories means that this analysis is worthless.

And politicians choose their issues & what to say about them. Your point is what- that politifact would have to evaluate all stories for a fair comparison?

 

[MagickMan]

Politifact are Progressivist shills, big surprise.