This post is adapted from Rachel's script last night.
America, behold! An empirical statement of fact from the president of the United States.
President Obama: 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. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.
President Obama made these two claims in his State of the Union address this week -- that in the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs, and that last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.
The self-proclaimed fact-checking news site PolitiFact decided to fact check this claim by the president. PolitiFact describes itself as a nonpartisan journalism enterprise. They fact check what politicians and public figures say and then they rate the statements with this thingy they call the truth-o-meter.
PolitiFact went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to figure this out. I don't know if they looked at this specific report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (pdf), but within about 15 seconds of Googling, we found this and you'd find it too. From a couple weeks back, January 6, 2012, in this report, the bureau says, since February 2010, "The private sector has added 3.2 million jobs." So in 22 months, businesses added more than 3 million jobs.
PolitiFact came to the same conclusion. So, put a check mark next to that part. It checks out. What the president said is true.
PolitiFact then went on to say, OK, the second part of Obama's statements, the fact that businesses made more jobs last year than any year since 2005 -- it turns out, that's true too. "As for whether 2011 was the best job-producing jobs since '05, he's right, if you're counting private-sector jobs." They go on, "The increase in 2011 represented the highest one-year total since 2005."
So to sum up, the president says thing A and thing B. PolitiFact looks into it and decides that thing A and thing B as stated by the president are both true. On their truth-o-meter, they rate the statements Half True. How did two trues add up to a Half True?
PolitiFact writes, "Obama is correct on both counts, when using private-sector jobs numbers." That's probably why he said businesses, right? Right. PolitiFact continues: "But he went too far when he implicitly credited his administration policies. So we rate the statement Half True."
When he implicitly credited his administration policies, as in when he said, "Businesses have created more than 3 million jobs"?
PolitiFact, what is wrong with you? You think the president calls himself "Businesses," like it's a nickname for himself? You think he looks himself in the mirror and says, "Hey, Businesses, looking good"?
After the economist Jared Bernstein and half of the English-speaking Internet L-so-O-L'ed at PolitiFact for screwing this up today, PolitiFact went back and revised their initial finding. They said this: "Our initial Half True rating was based upon an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increases. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed."
Now, we're back to something that calls itself PolitiFact, fact-checking the president saying thing A and thing B, both of which PolitiFact says are true. What is their chastened, revised new rating for their fact check of the president saying two things that they admit are true? What's their new rating?
"Mostly True"! That's what they said.
PolitiFact, you are fired. You are a mess. You are fired. You are undermining the definition of the word "fact" in the English language by pretending to it in your name. The English language wants its word back.
You are an embarrassment. You sully the reputation of anyone who cites you as an authority on fact-ishness, let alone fact. You are fired.
Leave a Comment:
Obviously Obama was telling only a half truth because he forgot to state that:
- Obama is responsible for all of the job losses starting from when he was elected including prior to his taking the oath of office.
- Bush economic policies are responsible for all of the job gains.
Either that or PolitiFact is just another mouthpiece of the corporately owned media fulfilling their assigned tasks of being an echo chamber and message amplifier for the repuknican messages of the day.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/when_calling_out_lies_dont_lie._duh
Sad state of affairs. Media Matters is still okay, though.
Politifact has been suspect for a while but.......
When someone is playing both sides of the fence sometimes the truth doesn't matter.
The USPS has abirtrators to hear grievances and they are supposed to be fair but they aren't. They have to be approved by both sides, the USPS and Postal Union. If an arbitrator rules too many times for the Union then the USPS can vote the arbitrator out and if he rules for the USPS the Union can vote him out...So much for the truth it only matters what the scorecards says.
Still says Half-true on Facebook.
I guess that means PolitiFlake is still half-cocked.
Looking through the other "Fact Checks" from the STOFU, PolitiFact is doing the same thing with their truth ratings. The piece about the auto bailout is a great example. GM and Chrysler were going bankrupt, we bailed them out, they have grown since, and GM sold the most cars in 2011. Credit can be taken where credit is due. Obama didn't claim that his actions alone made GM #1, but they certainly were a large part. If PolitiFact was a serious operation, they would spend a lot less time trying to parse the meaning of Obama's every word and rate the statement based only on the information presented.
I would love to Have someone check to see how many Jobs Romney created since he left Bain. The main argument for the Republicans is if we give the "job creators" ore tax breaks they will create jobs for us commoners. romney would sure fit the description as a "job creator" So since he's been living on his capital gains and paying 15% tax how many jobs did he create?? My guess is that if he did they are jobs for bankers or tellers in the Cayman Island or Switzerland but not here. that's the fallacy the"job creators" take their loot an make more with it they don't create jobs!
well he said 100000 while with Bain 15 years.
that's 6666 a year. that's i snot even close to being close to being descent job growth.
Swiss Mittens, according to his 2010 tax returns, paid payroll taxes for a houshold job(s) of $20k for 2010 while earning about $40M in passive income. A very weak record, indeed.
just as the right has done for the last 3 years,
Politifact using that kind of standard must now requalify all their true answers as mostly true. If I said the sky was blue, politifact can only agree that is mostly true. It's hard to say anything that is absolutely true in all conditions.
Try it for yourself. Say, "I am human." Normally not disputed as true, but you may also be a male or female. You may be of a certain ethnic background, so human doesn't quite identify you. So, it's mostly true.
OH GAWD... Don't fire them, they'll blame President Obama for it... oh wait they already do !
Did FauxNews recently buy them? The new company name should be "Politimostly Fact"... However having the word FACT next to Political is an Oxymoron in my humble opinion anyway!
Today's politifalse.com says it is "Half True" that GM is the #1 car company in the world, even though they admit that it is true. They justify the "half True" by saying it wasn't because Obama bailed them out, so he can't claim credit. Where would GM be today if the bailout had not happened? But Obama really didn't take credit for the #1 position, just for keeping the company alive so they could get there on their own.
well for one thing all there stock holders would be broke or lost all there money.
at lease they have regain some of the money they lost.
and Ford benefited as much from the loans given to GM and Chrysler. cause non of the vendors had to shut down.
So, PolitiFact is a "sub-text" checker rather than a "fact" checker organization. Who knew? Glad that's been revealed.
So, my own personal "Truth-O-Meter" rates their name (PolitiFact) as being Totally False. Now if the name was something like "PolitiSubTextDiviner" that would be more factually correct.
As an aside, I felt that Rachel took way too much pleasure in "firing" them. I "divined" that using my innate Implied-O-Meter. Seems she has something in common with the Mittster!
If Politifact were objective they would say nothing but Republicans are liars. To balance that, they have to include Democrats for any made-up reason. Hence they have a double standard: letting gross Republican lies pass while grilling Democrats on technicalities. Examples:
The editor of Politifact said that they used to judge a statement from a politician just on its factualness, but when politicians claim that their policies created those facts Politifact is obliged to judge the truth of that causality as well. Using economic experts to judge causality is a disastrous method of finding the truth. Economists don't agree on anything.
Is there a reasonable alternative to Politifact? The idea of Politifact is great -- if they were just checking facts it would be a wonderful service.
There's a big difference between "facts" and "truth." One can be proven or disproven, while the other is usually open to interpretation, and that interpretation usually depends on the interpreter.
In my many years working as a newspaper (gosh, remember those things?) reporter, there were two overriding mottos: "We don't print the truth, we print what people tell us is the truth," and "Always consider *what* they are telling you, and also *why* they are telling you."
On the first point, if I write a story that says, "John Doe said, 'The moon is made of green cheese,'" that's a provable fact. He did say it. But it may not be a fact that the moon is made of green cheese. A good reporter would include opposing opinions and information, and let the reader decide. (Unless the reporter has a particular interest in pushing or promoting a particular idea or opinion, of course.)
The second point is sort of a revision of the "don't kill the messenger" message. Yes, don't kill the messenger, but know where the messenger came from. Why is the messenger telling me this? Does this information serve the messenger's cause?
In short, as an educated reader and citizen, gather all the information (or "facts") that you can. Weigh them carefully. Consider the sources, and their possible biases. Then make up your own mind. That's your "truth."
Ding ding ding!
I love Far left. When PF was saying things against Reps Far left was posting it all over. They mess with Obama now their fired? LMAO
Heck, I'll fire them for their comments about the Far Right, too. For example, they considered Mitch Daniels' comment in the SOTU response that, "Nearly half of all persons under 30 did not go to work today," and determined it to be "pants on fire" lying.
I'd say that, factually, he was absolutely right. Most people under 30 didn't go to work today. In addition to all the people in that group who are unemployed, there are also lots of people in college, high school, middle school and elementary school who didn't go to work. I bet most infants don't have regular jobs, either. And some Republicans include fertilized eggs in the "people" category, and I bet not many of those have jobs, either.
Without question, most people under 30 *didn't* go to work today. That's a fact, Jack. (Technically, though, Daniels was wrong for saying "nearly half." It's a lot more than that.)
If, however, you want to consider what he *meant* by that comment, or what his implied conclusion was, or what sort of *truth* he wanted to convey, that's another story. And if you want to discuss that, you should be looking for a website called PolitiTruth or PolitiOpinion, not PolitiFact.
Otherwise, a fact is a fact. Yes or no. If you hold yourself up to be the supreme, impartial judge of "facts," your rulings can't be, "Yes, but ..." -- which is what PolitiFacts often does, to both Left and the Right.
that's what I was trying to say. Thank you for articulating my point much better than I did ;-). I'm not a wordsmith by any means ;-)
Business are creating jobs DESPITE Obama's regulations and poor economic meddling. Just think how good it would be if we had a free market capitalist in control.
like Guatamala?
Where was all this indignant outrage from the left when Sarah Palin received a "Barely True" ("Mostly False") rating for a similarly true statement?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/09/sarah-palin/palin-says-us-ranks-25th-defense-spending-ranking/
Face it, liberals: You're only now realizing how bad PolitiFact is because of the ox currently getting gored. PolitiFact has always been a poor fact checker.
Politifact is exactly what is wrong w/our educational system ~ apparently they failed geometry but proved the Peter Principle!
The republicans always try to subvert, on take over anything, that gets in there way. The chamber of commerce, farm bureau, tax fronts for associations. That is there MO.
Perhaps what is needed is a fact-checker fact-checker to see if the checking of the facts done by the initial fact-checker was indeed correct. Then we'd need a fact-checker fact-checker fact-checker to make sure that the second regimen of fact checking was done properly. After that of course, the third investigation of the factual integrity of the second fact-checking of the original degree of truth will have to be vetted in order to determine if it was pristine to begin with.
Or as my friend drlouise put it,
"How much fact could a fact-check check, if a fact-check could check facts?"