Two recent examples demonstrate that PolitiFact as a brand has serious problems.
The first example is a PolitiFact evaluation of the following statement by Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican leader of the Wisconsin Senate:
On the night of the Wisconsin state Senate vote on the budget package, "a mob showed up and busted down the door and took over the Capitol."Here is a video showing what happened that night, do you think Fitzgerald's statement was in any way false?
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, however, rated the statement only half-true even though its evaluation demonstrated that the statement was true. Here is its conclusion (emphasis mine):
Fitzgerald’s declared a mob busted its way into the Capitol and took over the building. Yes, a large, angry crowd formed and some forced their way past police officers who fell back rather than try to prevent more from entering. The crowd did not literally bust down doors, but some damage was caused to the building. While they defied orders and delayed action the following day, they never controlled the situation.Notice how PolitiFact took a correct statement by Fitzgerald, but then added in a political factor, what caused the mob to act as it did, to find the statement only half-true. The statement by Fitzgerald had nothing to do with policy, it was a simple statement of what happened that night, so PolitiFact injected an irrelevant factor to find the statement only half-true . PolitiFact did not even "mostly true" rating, which is defined as "The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
So, the thrust of Fitzgerald’s statement is correct, but the rhetoric overstates some of what actually happened. Indeed, some of the fallout was a result not just of the policy changes in the bill -- which have prompted weeks of protests -- but the procedure in how it was brought up for a vote. The short notice helped fuel the response and may have left authorities unprepared for it.
The definition for Half True is "The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context."
That’s our rating.
The second example is by The Providence Journal which found "pants on fire" ("The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim") for the following statement by Kenneth McKay, who is running for Chairman of the Rhode Island Republican Party:
[McKay] Says Sheldon Whitehouse said on Senate floor: "Everybody in Rhode Island who disagrees with me about Obamacare is an Aryan, is a white supremacist."The statement concerned Whitehouse's infamous speech on the floor of the Senate, in which he compared health care protests to Kristallnacht and those who opposed Obama to racists:
Despite the wide-ranging attack by Whitehouse on those who opposed Obamacare, PolitiFact chose to engage in word games to get the rating it wanted, by focusing on McKay's words "everybody" and "in Rhode Island":
First, Whitehouse was excoriating Republican senators, not Rhode Islanders. In fact, he said nothing about Rhode Island in the entire speech.Listen to the videos above. Whitehouse was not just attacking Senators. It may have been hyperbole for McKay to say "everyone" was attacked, but not much of a hyperbole. Additionally, while Whitehouse did not mention Rhode Islanders by name, he also did not excuse Rhode Islanders from his smear of health care protesters. Any of the ratings from half-true to mostly true to true would have been in order. For the ProJo to find "pants on fire" itself deserves a "pants on fire" rating.
Second, despite his strident language, nowhere in the speech did he come close to saying that everyone who disagreed with the health care plan is an Aryan or a white supremacist.
He accused his Republican colleagues of engaging in a campaign of obstruction and delay "affecting every single aspect of the Senate’s business.’
He said they engaged in a "campaign of falsehoods: about death panels, and cuts to Medicare benefits, and benefits for illegal aliens and bureaucrats to be parachuted in between you and your doctor."
And he accused the GOP senators of voting against funding for soldiers, as another tactic to stall the health care vote.
But in the paragraph McKay cites, it’s clear that Whitehouse was criticizing fringe groups who are "nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama" not just opponents of the president’s health care plan.
In suggesting that Whitehouse labeled all opponents of the health care plan Aryans and white supremacists, McKay seriously distorted the senator’s speech. His further suggestion that, by extension, Whitehouse was applying the label to Rhode Islanders who disagreed with the president, is even more of a distortion.
Pants on Fire.
PolitiFact, you have a problem.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!