Someone had to call PolitiFact out, and I am SO glad TRMS did it! Rock on.

As an engineer I feel obligated to point out the technical terms used to describe the process of using a scape goat to affix blame without doing actual root cause analysis and correction.

Failure because management is hosed as Hogan's Goat.

FUBAR is another engineering term that comes to mind.

BTW. Hogan's Goat is in charge of he11.

FUBAR is the rough equivalent of what you have left after a grizzly bear removes an ice cooler from a volkswagen.

It's fun in a twisted kind of way to make fun of people that think like that.

I'm sure PolitiFlake will be proud to wear either label.

I'm so glad you called these clowns out. I stopped perusing their site a year or so ago and write them every time I convince someone else to stop using their site and believing their info. I'm not sure when they became so bad and what the cause was but I suspect it was a buyout of some kind.

Poynter ran off Romenesko too. I have no idea if the two things are related. They have also gotten really market-driven in their online journalism courseware marketing.

I guarantee if you started putting these banksters in jail - REAL JAIL - we would have some hope at seeing some real positive change. Put them in a cell with Bubba and see how well they like that. No more boneus. They would get another kind of bone.

I agree and I am from Texas the Republicans here are being nuts, they abuse lie commit fraud and flat out do not give a darn. I was talking with someone yesterday whom claimed not to be racist. LOL he said most of the people on food stamps are black and Obama has given a green light for all blacks, thinking it is OK. I could not believe what I was hearing. President Obama is an inspiration to young people, black, Hispanic, and everyone. He did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He worked very hard to get where he is today and deserves our up most respect.

Oh and this person who I was talking too, is committing fraud on the system, he is white go figure. A white republican, fraud, does it really supprise you! Not me it is the, do as I say not as I do, group ...... the group that does no wrong and have more morals than Democrat give me a break!

Most of us democrats work very hard for our money we are not lazy. I have a girl (black) that comes in here to help me. ( I have MS and do not get around so well anymore) she does not make a lot of money, doing what she does. She qualifies for food stamps and she told me I am working, why should I get food stamps I just have to eat what we can afford good or bad for our bodies, do the very best I can a keep going forward. She is not lazy in fact, I think she is underpaid.

She is what exactly what republicans refuse to see a hard working single black mother that qualifies for help and does not use it. Her answer God will keeps me strong, and he has always fed me. As far as I am concerned this Girl has a job helping me as long as she wants it!

Once again that "Liberal Media Bias" raises it's ugly head! Thanks Rachael for firing "Politifalse"! It's because of shenanigans like their "Truth-O-Meter" among other things that have the masses confused and being led like sheep to the GOP slaughter-house!!

Politifalse YOUR FIRED!!!

I hear what you're saying, Scout, and I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree just a bit. Yes, Obama did imply his administration should be able to take credit for the growth, slow as it might be. I see nothing wrong with this. After all, he gets the blame for the economy being in the shape it's in, why shouldn't he be allowed to take credit for the improvements, slow as they might be.

The economy is complicated, and it does not move quickly in any event, but Politifact was wrong on this rating. I thought it incorrect when I first read it, and I think it's still incorrect to rate the comment 'mostly true.' Nor is this the only questionable rating I've seen of late.

Politifact, unfortunately, is no longer as reliable as it once was, and I no longer trust it as I once did. I'm now going to factcheck.org. Whether that site will fill the gap Politifact has in the past remains to be seen.

Thank you, Rachel et al, for doing this segment.

I undertand that argument but I don't think it's Politifact's job to interpret what is being said.

They should rate statements as fact or fiction. If they start to pick everything apart and rate what they think is being said then they become political and untrustworthy.

Haddie Nuff, I think your analysis is very well thought and communicated. I would add a few other points.

1. I like to look at several sources and/or perspectives. So, politifact still remains on my list of possible places to check for accuracy.

2. I appreciate any source that explains its reasoning and sources its data like politifact. Ms. Maddow was able to make her point simply by using the information posted by politifact. Thus, anyone can read it and come to her same conclusion. Not true with sites that only offer opinion and no sourcing.

3. You can be factually correct but conceptually (not sure that's the right word) wrong. For instance, I could say "the door is not closed," when in reality the door is off it's hinges and laying on the floor.

I'm not saying this is the case with the SOTU speech, but just being factually correct does not necessarily mean it is truthful.

but do you believe the persident has caused it to get any worse I think the speaker of the house and his protoge Cantor have caused the confusion and should be charged with something called lieing to the public also that hy bred ,mitch oconell, running the repubs there ,Mr Obama has done a lot, inspite of interference by the right wing politicians,and their pledge not to raise taxes ,the economy was in the gutter when Obama took it over his policies have helped in the recovery ,and now he will keep slugging it with them ,but im betting if the right wins some how they will find , that Obama was right and come forth with borrowing more money and increasing the debt to create jobs , but im making sure I vote for the people and Obama 2012

Unemployment on Inauguration day - 7.8% Today 8.4%

Gas Inauguration Day $1.85 Today $3.39

Federal Debt Inauguration Day $10.6 Trillion Today $15.2 trillion

Misery Index Inauguration Day 7.8 Today 11.9

Health Insurance Costs up 23%

Food Stamp Recipients Inauguration Day 32 million Today 46 Million

How has he helped recovery again?

Eric, you are being foolish..

You know all of these numbers so that tells me that you either copied and pasted it, or you really looked all those things up.. And if you looked all those things up, that would tell me that you have a thirst for knowledge, if you have a thirst for knowledge than you undoubtedly also know the truth about where unemployment stood when the free-falling numbers began their process of bottoming out from about 6 to 12 months AFTER Obama took office, all which would have happened regardless of who was elected.

So from the recessions BOTTOM, unemployment numbers have come DOWN from 10.2 percent...

Gasoline prices have nothing to do with the president, we all had this argument and figured out the truth of that under Bush.. Apparently you missed that national discussion.

Debt, Health Costs, Food Stamps were all set to go up ANYWAY and always go up during a recession..

And the misery index is simply the unemployment rate added to the rate of inflation which essentially is meaningless but we could debate that... Regardless, of COURSE it is going to be higher since unemployment is higher but as we just learned, Unemployment has gone DOWN from it's bottom and thus so has the worthless "Misery Index"

Josh,

The "shovel ready" stimulus package Obama stated it would keep unemployment below 8%, it didn't, and added to the debt, Obama care is adding to Health Care costs rising. Who is being foolish saying regulations imposed on oil companies do not add to the cost of gas? Is BO solely responsible for the mess we are in, no, but he is primary responsible.

Josh,

that's his MO

Obama stated it would keep unemployment below 8%

No, he didn't. That is simply a right-wing lie.

Good job Eric,in pointing out the obvious.

Covah is correct. President Obama did not say this. His a plan from his Council of Economic Advisers stated this. There was even a chart showing what the unemployment rate would be without President Obama's stimulus and what it would be like with his stimulus package. With it, unemployment was predicted not to rise over 8%.

Link to plan:

http://www.thompson.com/images/thompson/nclb/openresources/obamaeconplanjan9.pdf

right wing blames the president for ruinning our credit rating but the ceo of S&p said the house leaders were why they lowered the credit rating , you can look it up just google it and see for your self if you can't rember,too many people have developed political alsheimers disease , thats where they make up what they want to be true in stead of looking for the facts!

ceo of S&p said the house leaders were why they lowered the credit rating

Sonny, you may be the one with "political alsheimers." Here is the quote from S&P:

S&P's statement was blunt in its assessment: "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process," the ratings firm said.

They did NOT blame any individual, group of individuals, or party. They said we are not curtailing spending, we are not increasing revenue, and we are not working productively on either.

If I am wrong, please do your "google" and let me know the quote you are referring to...glad I could help.

she cracks me up too. What a joke she it.

You are the big joke. She's real, honest and truthful. More than I can say for your side.

"In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs."

Do you not think President Obama is strongly making a link between his policies and the job creation?

I think it is fair to point out (if you are trying to ensure the facts AND the message they present are truthful) that other factors were at play.

It has been my experience that if you take what the Left say and what the Right say, you'll find the complete truth is somewhere in the middle. In other words, what the Left says can be 100% factual and so can what the Right say. But a complete picture is created by neither.

Now, one can argue that one side of the other has a more complete picture (80%/20%), but generally neither side tells the whole story. It waters down their message and creates a door for the other side to exploit. IMHO

and his facts were right on!

Sonny, facts do not tell the whole story. I could say that "you are out of prison" and I would factually correct but misleading in my factual statement, or so I assume.

I would factually correct but misleading in my factual statement, or so I assume.

Yep. That would include Mitch Daniels' rebuttal to Obama:

"Just like nearly half of all persons under 30 did not go to work today."

Uh huh, like that includes children and infants.

I learned that from post #42. Thanks Mark!

Except if you'll stop cheerleading long enough to replay the whole segment, you'll see SHE'S WRONG! (The President talks about job losses during the six months before he took office and further losses "before our policies took full effect," then talks about gains.) Which makes the rant about PolitiFact's supposed slipshodness (if that's not a word, I just invented it) with the language look a bit ridiculous.

I understand that's blasphemy around here....

He may have implied it, Michael, or he may not have been tying the two together at all. I still don't think Politifact should rate their interpretation of what he said.

Had he said the 3 million jobs were a result of his policy then they could call him out on it. If they start rating what they think they hear then their analysis can't be trusted.

Apparently the podcast did not capture the entire show. Keva, where are you?

But your take would not have made an interesting segment.

Swing and a miss for both of you. Her point- which she said openly- was that your interpretation of a statement is not a fact. A fact is something that can be objectively studied and proven true at or nearly at 100% consistency. An implication certainly did exist w/ PBO's statement, but such an implication is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of interpretation. Interpretation may be disingenuous and it certainly would've been fine for Politifact to make note that there have been other elements in play w/ the recession (and not just PBO's policies). PBO did not come out and say that his policies and his policies alone were the mitigating factor in job creation. Such a statement would be empirical and then a truth vs. lie rating could be assigned. Instead he stated that there has been 22 months in job creation after talking about his policies. In his case it was a way of making a link w/o directly stating as much. There is a lot of skewing in modern society between what is opinion and what is truth and our media, for sure, doesn't help at all in distinguishing the difference. If Politifact wants to label itself the factchecking website then it must do so based on the claims made rather than the claims they believe were made. By not distinguishing the difference Politifact only adds to the confusion.

It is the job of any fact checking or news reporting agency to look not only at the objective facts but anything that might be subjectively implied. Granted "facts" and "truth" are not always synonymous and the former is much easier to dispute than the latter.

We've all seen political ads that are factually accurate but truthfully misleading. Haven't you?

You can state factually proven statements in a way that lead the viewer/hearer to draw a false truth. I'm not saying this was necessarily the case but it is true and thus a legitimate part of fact finding, IMHO.

but anything that might be subjectively implied

This is impossible. If something is subjectively implied then it is exactly that: subjective.

Rachel stated in her rant that she was disappointed in Politifact because they claimed a "mostly true" rating based on their subjective experience. You can't acknowledge that your experience is subjective and then turn around and claim that something is a true or false based on that subjectivity. It's completely contradictory to the nature and concept of the words "true," "false," and "fact." That was the whole point of Rachel's rant. If you claim that thing A and thing B are true you cannot then state that it's a "half true" or "almost true" statement simply because you interpreted there to be a dishonest connotation between the two. Notice that Rachel didn't bash them for pointing out that it wasn't just PBO's policies who've helped for job creations. That's because she isn't upset about Politifact discussing the nuances of economics. Rachel's point wasn't that economies are complicated and no one policy or administration can take credit for growths/gains. Her point was that if you are stating something is true or false it has to be based on empirical data. That empirical data, by Politifact's own admission, said that the President's claims were true. If Politifact wanted to add a footnote that would've been completely acceptable. But stating that the president is "half true" because he makes 2 factually accurate claims and then the reporter doing the factchecking decided he/she heard an implication in the sentence? That's subjective assessment guised as factchecking and it's a joke.

Now you are correct that politicians will purposefully put sentences together so that the person hearing the statement will walk away w/ a different impression. I can't remember what they call that, but in communications it actually has a name. It deals w/ framing, but it's escaping me right now. As an example: I don't know that President Bush ever stated that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 outright. He did, however, constantly talk about 9/11 and then switch to talking about Iraq (or the reverse) in the same speech. What this does is it creates- in the individual's mind- a link between the two that doesn't actually exist. It's the same as repeating words over again in a sentence so that people leave the speech having only heard those repeated terms. If you say 9/11 and then Iraq so many times in the same sentence eventually people will start connecting the two even though the two aren't connected. However you can't factually correct these two sentences. You can point out the correlation and the framing of the argument, you can point out the intent of the speaker, and you can point out the truth based on what you are interpreting the speaker is attempting to link (I.E. you could say "in fact 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do w/ each other"). But in doing so you must acknowledge that this is subjective assessment and you cannot claim that your interpretation is the only interpretation out there. It then becomes an argument in which you present your information to persuade the reader to believe you to be true. This is completely different than factchecking and that is the point. I generally think Politifact does a good job, but they do have problems distinguishing the difference between subjectivity versus objectivity and facts versus opinions.

@Michael in Philly,

Rachel called out PolitiFlake because they created a defense based on fantasy.

PolitiFlake's defense included a statement that Obama claimed he was responsible for the economic recovery when Obama actually claimed that private enterprise is responsible for the economic recovery.

So PolitiFlake created a falsehood to defend their false statement.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but three do. So fun to watch.

Mouzer, I used the term "subjectively implied" for a reason. What you "imply" can be put to a truth test. Whether or not you meant to imply it is what is subjective.

Example from other post: If I say that "you are out of prison" it strongly, strongly implies that you once were in prison. But it is a factual statement. Whether or not I meant to imply that you once were in prison is rather subjective (but in this case, rather obvious). What can be fact check would be if you had been in prison or not EVEN though I did not state that you had.

Obama said in essence that these were the facts BEFORE his policies went into place. Now these are the facts. This "subjectively implies" that his policies are the reason for the new facts. That is what Politifact was rightfully fact checking, his implication. And rightfully, his policies are NOT the reason or at least the only reason for the new facts.

And, Crackhead,

PolitiFlake's defense included a statement that Obama claimed he was responsible for the economic recovery when Obama actually claimed that private enterprise is responsible for the economic recovery.

Politifact says that Obama implied his policy was responsible for the change in economic facts. Whether or not he meant to imply that, I guess is subjective. But if the implication is there, it is worth fact checking.

Politifact says that Obama implied his policy was responsible for the change in economic facts. Whether or not he meant to imply that, I guess is subjective. But if the implication is there, it is worth fact checking.

You can't factcheck an implication RobDon. That is the whole point. You are admitting openly that whether or not someone thought there was an implication is subjective which immediately puts us in the realm of opinion and that is the whole point. An opinion cannot be factchecked. You can check to see if Obama's policies are to blame 100% for our economic recovery, you can also check to see (if they aren't 100%) what percentage they are to blame. But you would only think to check these things if you interpreted his statement as implying as much. That implication is on you, it is not on the person making the claim therefore you cannot factcheck the person making the statement. You can factcheck yourself and your opinion about the matter, but not the person making the statement. Unless Obama comes out and says "My policies are 100% behind the economic growth in this country" you cannot claim that he is making a factually inaccurate statement which is what Politifact did. Like I said no one would have complained if Politifact added an asterisk and then argued that there are other factors at play. Politifact asserted that Obama made a claim he actually did not make. Then they factchecked him based on this phantom claim.

You stating "you are not in prison" only has an implication if I interpret that it has an implication. If I don't interpret anything else to that statement then there isn't anything else for me to follow up on. The only way you can "factcheck" that statement is to assess whether or not I am in prison. If I am not then the statement is true. If I am then the statement is false. The implication is your subjective opinion. It's fine for you to make an argument in favor of your opinion, but you must acknowledge it as such. Politifact did not acknowledge it as such and THAT is the complaint.

If you wanted a better example this would be like when you interpreted that Rachel was dodging the question about Barack Obama and his policies regarding same-sex marriage. Rachel stated in that interview that Obama has changed his stance and is flubbing the issue regarding his personal position, but that she doesn't care what he or any other politician think of gay marriage. What she cares about are the policies actually inacted and since Obama has not inacted policies regarding same-sex marriage and since he has not advocated doing so there isn't a policy position, in this regards, that you can "factcheck" him on. Thus her interpretation of the comment was that it solely had to do w/ his personal opinion about the issue and she answered the question according to that interpretation. Your interpretation was that she was dodging the issue because you are of the opinion that his constant flip-flopping on his personal position affects the policies that he advocates. You then accused Rachel of lying based on this interpretation. It was not Rachel who was at fault in that situation. You simply were of a different understanding of the question. That doesn't make her answer a dodge or factually less accurate: it simply means you were of two different opinions about the situation.

Translating that to Politifact here we have a situation in which Politifact is factchecking what it interpreted to be an implied statement (as you did w/ the Slate question) when in reality the statement made didn't assert that implication (as was w/ Rachel's response).

*enacted argh

@RobDon,

Politifact says that Obama implied his policy was responsible for the change in economic facts. Whether or not he meant to imply that, I guess is subjective. But if the implication is there, it is worth fact checking.

Wow.

He didn't actually say it, so you're trying to say he did something wrong by thinking it too loud so only you could hear it?

I'm impressed.

Which parent did you inherit your mind-reading genes from?

That's a skill that I totally lack.

So, if someone ran an ad this election asserting that President Obama's father was a Muslim and the President Obama went to a Muslim school, you would have no problem with it and would agree that it was factually correct.

Stated facts can make implications that can then been addressed as either factual or not. While this commercial would be factual correct (President Obama's father was a Muslim even if he later became an atheist and President Obama did attend a Muslim school for a short while.) But that is NOT what these facts (or the ad) would be trying to imply.

You can't have it both ways. Either you would have a problem with the ad and would agree that it was misleading (opinion can not be misleading, only fact/truth) or you would say the ad was correct and you would have no problem with it. Which is it?

So, if someone ran an ad this election asserting that President Obama's father was a Muslim and the President Obama went to a Muslim school, you would have no problem with it and would agree that it was factually correct.

Now you are purposely ignoring what I said RobDon. You do this sometimes and this is where you and I butt heads most frequently. You listen to half a sentence and ignore the other half. Go back and read what I said. I repeated- over and over- that giving context to a factual statement and presenting an argument about the interpretation of a statement is OK to do. You just can't label a statement "half true" simply because you are of the opinion that the context was inappropriate or of the opinion that the presentation was bad. Do you see the difference? This is as blunt as I know how to make it. You cannot assert something as true when it's an opinion. Again I will repeat: it's OK to present a counter argument and to present context. But you cannot do so and then claim "fact." That is the issue at hand here and considering that Maddow herself elaborated on this scale in agreement w/ my position, I am absolutely flabbergasted how you're not understanding this. Would I be OK w/ such an ad? No because I would interpret it as giving an implication that I would feel was unfair. Would it be factually incorrect? No. The two are NOT the same. I would then write a rebuttal in which I stated that the ad was misleading and I would proceed to provide a counter argument that included context and included evidence supporting my opinion. In doing so, while I may use facts as a justification for why I feel what I feel, I must acknowledge that I am expressing an opinion. A statement of fact can only be evaluated on whether the statement itself is true or false. Obama's father was once a Muslim: true. Obama briefly attended a Muslim school during his childhood: true. The implication of such an ad, in my opinion, would be that Obama was a Muslim. I cannot then make a counter ad saying "this ad is false when it claims Obama is a Muslim." Why? Because that claim was never made.

I cannot then make a counter ad saying "this ad is false when it claims Obama is a Muslim." Why? Because that claim was never made.

But you can say this ad is false because the implication seems to be that Obama is a Muslim. Correct?

Which is exactly what Politifact was saying.

Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True. Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True.

Part of communication is and has to be interpretation (decoding the message).

I think our examples may have gotten in the way of our communication. Bottom line: I think it is perfectly appropriate for a fact checking organization to interpret what was said and interpretation (decoding the message) is by nature subjective (but has to be part of the process!). Especially when they include that it is what was "implied" that makes it half true, I think their rationale allows others to agree or disagree.

I also agree with their decision to make it "mostly true." You will NEVER find a fact checking organization that you agree with 100%. Why? Because communication involves the step of decoding a message. It is not just the words, it is the meaning they represent or imply.

Lastly, I try never to ignore what you say. I promise. Sometimes I'm think headed but I read and try to pay attention to every word (decoding as I go.)

Love ya!

But you can say this ad is false because the implication seems to be that Obama is a Muslim. Correct?

No. The add is true because it's factually correct. I can state that I disagree w/ it and present a counter argument. Like I said no one is narking Politifact for writing an op-ed. The problem is they don't bill themselves as an op-ed paper. They bill themselves as a truth-o-meter. Which means that unless something is factually untrue you can't call it a lie. I'm not bitching about them presenting a counter argument and neither is Rachel. We're bitching because they pretend to know what the terms "fact" "truth" and "false" mean when they clearly don't.

Lastly, I try never to ignore what you say. I promise. Sometimes I'm think headed but I read and try to pay attention to every word (decoding as I go.)

Love ya!

I know I was just frustrated. Other supposedly conservative bloggers (who I really think are just idiots or are liberals messing w/ me) were pissing me off and I took it out on you. Kind've that "since your family I know you're safe to yell at" kind've thing. I'm sorry. Thank you, once again, for being a sane representative for the Republican party and for conservative ideology. If everyone were like you I wouldn't want to choke so many people...which probably says more about me than anything else lol.

Love you too Rob ;-)

No. The add is true because it's factually correct. I can state that I disagree w/ it and present a counter argument.

So you are going to "disagree" with a factually correct ad? No, you are disagreeing with the FACT the ad is IMPLYING.

You can not "fact check" if the implication was intended or not, but you can fact check the FACT the implication implies. In my ad example, the fact implied was that President Obama is a Muslim. In President Obama's speech, the fact implied was that his policies were cause (not THE cause necessarily) for the change in numbers. It is this that Politifact was fact checking.

This best summarizes my view of the incident.

I didn't word myself correctly, good catch. I sometimes get ahead of myself and expect you to read my mind. Haven't you learned this yet? ;-) What I meant was I cannot disagree w/ the fact that Obama attended a Muslim school. But I can point out that, in my interpretation, the ad is attempting to imply that Obama is a Muslim and I can disagree w/ that. There is nothing wrong w/ disagreeing w/ perceived intention of a speech. The difference is I have to accept that this is an opinion. That is all this discussion is about. The fact that Obama's dad was a Muslim and the fact that Obama attended a Muslim school can't be debated. But I can disagree w/ what I interpreted to be an implication that Obama is a Muslim. I just have to acknowledge that this is my interpretation as opposed to what was actually said. I can also provide context in which case I am neither disagreeing or agreeing. I can state From X year until X Obama's father identified as Muslim, after which he identified as atheist. I can state from X year to X Obama attended a Muslim school, after which he attended American schools. Either are appropriate, but I cannot provide them and then pretend that I am "factchecking."

Technically and factually (and, please, correct me if I'm wrong on this, math geeks), an increase from 4.3 percent to 7.5 percent is an increase of 3.2 percentage points, not an increase of 3.2 percent.

An increase from 4.3 to 7.5 is actually an increase of 74.4 percent.

What are you referring to? Can you provide a source? Thanks.