Redactors Does An Analysis Of Politifacts.com

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
They don't seem to have difficulty doing that at all, and they are making a qualitative judgment on how dishonest something is which by definition requires them to use personal judgment. They appeared to underestimate how many people would be affected, and so in that case got their facts wrong. That will always happen in any organization from time to time, it's not particularly special or interesting.

What's more important is when they got new information they changed their reporting to reflect it. That's the kind of honesty you want in a source and something you should be congratulating them for. I would imagine we can all agree on that.

As I figured though, you're trying to make some passive-aggressive statement of nebulous bias that requires no evidence to back it up. It is pretty amusing that the example you used though was them giving Obama the 'lie of the year' award, haha.
My point is that there is a significant amount of subjectivity involved in determining what is "factual". But it is pretty amusing to see some here getting their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of such heresy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
My point is that there is a significant amount of subjectivity involved in determining what is "factual". But it is pretty amusing to see some here getting their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of such heresy.

Heresy? Don't be ridiculous.

So basically your response is "but what is the nature of truth?" If that's what you need to maintain the bubble, I guess that's up to you.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Heresy? Don't be ridiculous.

So basically your response is "but what is the nature of truth?" If that's what you need to maintain the bubble, I guess that's up to you.
No...I'm NOT basically responding with "what is the nature of truth?". I'm saying there's a huge amount of subjectivity involved in evaluating "truth", especially in the political arena. It appears that your bubble is preventing you from understanding such a subtle nuance as this. You act as if you have a dog in this fight? What gives?
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,855
30,635
136
So far no specific examples of politifact ruling incorrectly in regards to GOP candidates. Anyone have some they want to bring forward for discussion?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
No...I'm NOT basically responding with "what is the nature of truth?". I'm saying there's a huge amount of subjectivity involved in evaluating "truth", especially in the political arena. It appears that your bubble is preventing you from understanding such a subtle nuance as this. You act as if you have a dog in this fight? What gives?

what is the nature of truth means that truth is not objective but subjective.
I'm saying there's a huge amount of subjectivity involved in evaluating "truth", especially in the political arena means truth is not objective but subjective.

How is what he said different from what you said?

I dont have a dog in this fight, and I do not agree with spy on a lot of political things, but he is right on this.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
We get what we tolerate. I'm under no illusions that we'll get perfectly virtuous people in politics, but I find it hard to believe that we can't do better.

You're dealing with politicians, so isn't sucking the least exactly the best you can hope for?

404 Jefferson Smith not found
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,735
6,759
126
No...I'm NOT basically responding with "what is the nature of truth?". I'm saying there's a huge amount of subjectivity involved in evaluating "truth", especially in the political arena. It appears that your bubble is preventing you from understanding such a subtle nuance as this. You act as if you have a dog in this fight? What gives?

Yes, and when an attempt to cut through the subjectivity is made by some organization attempting to be as unbiased as possible, they find that Conservatives lie more than Liberals because they are subjectively more biased and the only way conservatives can account for that is that they must be subjectively biased. You don't find that to be odd? Remember what you know about projection as if you had no dog in this fight.

In shout, it seems to me that while you believe you are only presenting neutral facts, they strike me as having slant.

Mulla Nasrudin's neighbor's bull broke down the fence and gored the Mulla's cow. He ran to the neighbor's house and announced, my bull has broken the fence and gored your cow. In that case, said the neighbor, you owe me compensation. Wait, said the Mulla, it was your bull that gored my cow. Ah, said the neighbor, in that case it's an act of God and no restitution is required.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
We get what we tolerate. I'm under no illusions that we'll get perfectly virtuous people in politics, but I find it hard to believe that we can't do better.

Give it some more thought then.

Think about what's involved, and why anyone would do that to themselves. The pool is automatically small and warped.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
We get what we tolerate. I'm under no illusions that we'll get perfectly virtuous people in politics, but I find it hard to believe that we can't do better.

The purpose of governments taking things over is the idea that governments can be more efficient than people managing everything in their lives. Not needing to do things like have an individual contract with the fire department or police, the society becomes more efficient.

The problem is when people build lives around the government doing things for them. When you build up the power of the government and put that in a democracy where individuals have very little power, you get what we have now. Private people with lots of power can corrupt the government for their benefit, but the regular voter has very little power alone. The cost for a single person is very high vs the benefit they can extract from changing the government. The cost for a powerful person is high, but they can extract far more.

So long as the government has the power to benefit the powerful, the powerful will seek the benefit from the government. The system that would regulate is the government, so there is an inherent conflict.

If you want better people in politics, reduce the power of the government.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yes, and when an attempt to cut through the subjectivity is made by some organization attempting to be as unbiased as possible, they find that Conservatives lie more than Liberals because they are subjectively more biased and the only way conservatives can account for that is that they must be subjectively biased. You don't find that to be odd? Remember what you know about projection as if you had no dog in this fight.

In shout, it seems to me that while you believe you are only presenting neutral facts, they strike me as having slant.

Mulla Nasrudin's neighbor's bull broke down the fence and gored the Mulla's cow. He ran to the neighbor's house and announced, my bull has broken the fence and gored your cow. In that case, said the neighbor, you owe me compensation. Wait, said the Mulla, it was your bull that gored my cow. Ah, said the neighbor, in that case it's an act of God and no restitution is required.
Imagine that!
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
No...I'm NOT basically responding with "what is the nature of truth?". I'm saying there's a huge amount of subjectivity involved in evaluating "truth", especially in the political arena. It appears that your bubble is preventing you from understanding such a subtle nuance as this. You act as if you have a dog in this fight? What gives?
But you're actually saying more than that. You're implying that the explanation for the reported significant difference in truthfulness between Democrats and Republicans on Politifact is that Politifact's "subjectivity" has a huge bias in favor of Democrats. And you're making that claim on the sole basis that a significant difference exists. Talk about circular reasoning.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,855
30,635
136
Nothing you care to listen to...if that's what you mean.

Stop projecting.

I was asking a serious question for specific examples we could discuss. Your inability or unwillingness to provide those speaks volumes.

The only example discussed in this thread (which I believe I was the first one to link to) was Obama's lie of the year for statements he made around the ACA and keeping plans. So far no one has come forward with an example showing that politifact was inappropriate in their treatment of a conservative. Instead it is nebulous whining about bias with zero evidence provided to back it up.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Wait... have you said anything of substance on the subject? Can you link to that post?
Just stating an opinion and watching people getting their panties in a bunch in their rush to refute 'nothing of substance'. Perhaps your question is best answered by those who salivate when they hear the bell ring.
 
Last edited:

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Just stating an opinion and watching people getting their panties in a bunch in their rush to refute 'nothing of substance'. Perhaps your question is best answered by those who salivate when they hear the bell ring.

So... trolling.

Got it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Stop projecting.

I was asking a serious question for specific examples we could discuss. Your inability or unwillingness to provide those speaks volumes.

The only example discussed in this thread (which I believe I was the first one to link to) was Obama's lie of the year for statements he made around the ACA and keeping plans. So far no one has come forward with an example showing that politifact was inappropriate in their treatment of a conservative. Instead it is nebulous whining about bias with zero evidence provided to back it up.
Look, I've been around the block here and I have a fairly good understanding of your idea of "discussion". I highly doubt that there would be any profit for either of us to attempt such....unless, of course, getting one's rocks off insulting the other is considered "profit" in your world.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,855
30,635
136
Look, I've been around the block here and I have a fairly good understanding of your idea of "discussion". I highly doubt that there would be any profit for either of us to attempt such....unless, of course, getting one's rocks off insulting the other is considered "profit" in your world.

Look man, I know we've had our run-ins but I'm asking a serious question and so far no one who throws the "bias" card around can be bothered to come up with any examples.

If politifact was as biased as claimed this shouldn't be a problem.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,782
8,359
136
Republicans never would have been able to do what they have done if Democrats didn't turn their backs on the middle class,

The damage Reagan did was with a democrat controlled congress, and likewise the republicans did a lot of damage when they ran congress,
in the end both have failed, one being the lesser of two evils is irrelevant and is used as divisive tool to keep the koolaid drinking party faithful busy pointing fingers while the ship is sinking.

Ergo my mentioning that some Dems are also complicit in what the Repub majority wants to do. I guess I didn't stress that enough in my post.

To clarify what my post was about and in response to your retort, just let me say that it's the preponderance of the Repubs in Congress that initiate and pursue their objective of siding with and working for the very wealthy, with the minority of Dems who are complicit going along for the ride.

Check the proposed legislation of each party coming out of Congress when they are in the majority for proof of what I'm opining about.

There have been numerous occasions where the Dems have had to cave to Repub demands in order to get the tiniest of concessions out of them. It's part and parcel of the set in stone trend where the Dems have always had to give a lot to get a little. It's a true and accurate indicator of how the very wealthy have so much more sway over Congress than does the middle class and the poor. It's also a perfect gauge of how utterly corrupt many of our Congress critters from both parties have become.

But let me reiterate a significant point of contention once more: It's the overwhelming majority of Repubs in Congress that are passing legislation that exclusively favor the very wealthy with a few yet significant number of Dems siding with them to get their legislation pushed through into law, with, of course, a return of the favor for those Dems to get their own pet projects pushed through.

The Dems, for the most part, aren't introducing legislation that exclusively favor the rich, and I'd hazard to guess with high confidence that when the Dems do it, it's to get something small for the middle class and the poor in exchange for it.

edit - Let me add that there have been numerous occasions where I felt that the Dems in Congress had betrayed their constituents quite badly, and that the sacrifices they made were nowhere equal to the gains they got out of it. In comparison, it's my opinion that almost every piece of legislation the Repubs have passed has been in favor of the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
But you're actually saying more than that. You're implying that the explanation for the reported significant difference in truthfulness between Democrats and Republicans on Politifact is that Politifact's "subjectivity" has a huge bias in favor of Democrats. And you're making that claim on the sole basis that a significant difference exists. Talk about circular reasoning.
Selection bias is likely at play as well as bias in applying the various degrees of "true/false" rating since there is no objective criteria used in its determination. I'm not saying the bias is deliberate, but that bias is inherent in all of us...especially those with strong political opinions. Liberals love this site, I get this. Everybody likes to hear what they want to hear.

The chart below is from 2012. Do you honestly believe that this is a fair representation of the honesty of both parties? I personally struggle with that.

politifact.png
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Selection bias is likely at play as well as bias in applying the various degrees of "true/false" rating since there is no objective criteria used in it's determination. I'm not saying the bias is deliberate, but that bias is inherent in all of us...especially those with strong political opinions. Liberals love this site, I get this. Everybody likes to hear what they want to hear.

The chart below is from 2012. Do you honestly believe that this is a fair representation of the honesty of both parties? I personally struggle with that.

politifact.png

Far too small a sample size and a focus on a rare event (the 'pants on fire' rating). This is a bad/invalid use of statistics by "conservativefactcheck.com" from which to draw conclusions about Politifact's leanings. This is likely due to their own bias, which is pretty funny considering the accusation, and also funny considering the statement that 'people like to hear what they want to hear'.

Not to mention that it holds Politifact finding that conservatives say more outrageous and false things as prima facie evidence that they are biased. That's circular reasoning. The chart looks pretty right to me.

For fun, go look at the statements rated 'pants on fire' that Romney or Michele Bachmann said. They are all absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/pants-fire/
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,855
30,635
136
Selection bias is likely at play as well as bias in applying the various degrees of "true/false" rating since there is no objective criteria used in its determination. I'm not saying the bias is deliberate, but that bias is inherent in all of us...especially those with strong political opinions. Liberals love this site, I get this. Everybody likes to hear what they want to hear.

The chart below is from 2012. Do you honestly believe that this is a fair representation of the honesty of both parties? I personally struggle with that.

politifact.png

Interesting that they focused on the most negative ruling. You can also dig in and see what they specifically ruled on and reasons for each ruling. Mitt made a bunch of really bad statements during the election and got hammered for it. Over all though he was rated significantly higher than most of the current crop of GOP candidates.

Is there any other "acceptable" site that performs the same function and lays out how they arrived at each ruling?