Fact-checking seems like a great idea!


Until you see fact-checking done: Fact-checking seems like a great idea—until you see fact-checking done.

Many people have pounded Politifact for this fact-check of Obama’s State of the Union Address—a fact-check the site has already adjusted, quite poorly.

As usual, the increasingly hapless site did a fairly good job assembling information about the statement they were checking. The problems occurred when they gave the fact-checked statement a rating.

In case you don’t already know: Even at the amended post, this is the statement Politifact says it was checking:
“In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.”
That statement constitutes the headline atop the Politifact post. That is the statement the prize-winning site says it was fact-checking.

Obama said it; Politifact checked. And sure enough! Each part of the statement was found to be accurate, as you can see if you read Politifact’s report. But uh-oh! In its initial post, Politifact rated Obama’s statement “half true.”

After complaints, they amended their judgment. As matters stand, the quoted statement is rated “mostly true.”

That's sad.

What is supposed to be wrong with that statement? Why isn’t the statement just flat-out “True?” Reading between the lines and around a few corners, Politifact thinks Obama was giving his own policies credit for those job gains—and they think that’s a bit of a stretch. These are the parts of his statement which spooked them: “In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.” (Italics ours.)

Was Obama taking credit for the job growth? You can torture that thought from his text, although we’d say some torture is needed. But even if you take that route, both parts of the quoted, headlined statement remain flat-out accurate: True!

Politifact did a decent job presenting the relevant background information. But as we have noted in the past, the conceptual skills just aren’t strong at this prize-winning site. In the current instance, if they felt Obama was trying to take too much credit, they could have rated his statement like this:

“True (with one minor caveat).”

We think that rating would show excessive concern about Obama’s credit-grab. But at least it would recognize the obvious: The claims which appear in Politifact’s headline were, in fact, found to be accurate!

Fact-checking seems like a good idea—until you see people do it! We had a similar reaction after reading Glenn Kessler’s State of the Union fact-check at the Washington Post.

Kessler offered “a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-challenged claims, in the order in which he made them.” But people! This is the fifth such claim by Obama, with Kessler’s fact-check shown in full:
“A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.”

This is true. An interesting article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this month explains that costs in China have risen because of labor unrest, higher shipping rates—and weakening of the yuan against the dollar because of political pressure by the United States.
“This is true,” Kessler said. We have no idea why the statement he quoted would be included in a list of Obama’s “more fact-challenged claims.”

Except maybe we do. Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly—and sometimes, do fact-checkers have to find errors? We thought Kessler picked several nits in other parts of his post. Sometimes, being cast in the role of fact-checker may make us feel that we have to find piles of bum facts.

Then there was Rachel Maddow, taking revenge on Politifact, her nemesis. She’s a former Rhodes Scholar, but you’d never know it! She clowned and performed, as she constantly does—and played it dumb in the process.

Rachel didn’t seem to have any idea what Politifact’s reasoning was. We thought the site’s reasoning process was weak—but at least we told you what it was. We didn’t attempt to con (and please) you in the clowning way this TV star did. (To watch her perform, just click this. Do not throw fish to the seals!)

A week or so back, the public editor at the New York Times wrote a pair of barely coherent posts asking if the Times should do more fact-checking in its news reports. (Or something.)

We liberals screeched and wailed: Of course they should do more fact-checking! This editor’s posts were hard to parse. But few of his critics seemed aware of the pitfalls involved when reporters are told to “check facts.”

The press corps’ skills are very poor. Fact-checking seems like a great idea—until you see it done.


  1. Bob, we read you so we don't have to watch Hacks like Maddow or Matthews or O'Donnell. The linked clip is Godawful. Corporate TV news is worse than I remember from way back in 2003 when I stopped viewing.

    Anyhows, the whole "business created jobs meme" is a misdirection adopted by both parties. I really don't care what Politifact determined or what the Obots conclude.

    The whole implication of this claim - in the long run - is to dehumanize PUBLIC SECTOR workers (i.e. teachers, cops, Military, firemen, toll collectors, etc.). So while the private sector (i.e. Bizness) has added 3 million jobs in the past 22 months the PUBLIC SECTOR has eliminated appx. 1.4 million. A net 1.6 million job growth in nearly 2 years.

    A HORRIBLE rate, especially considering "official" unemployment has been over 8.5% for the past 37 months and REAL underemployment (U-6 numbers) have been over 14% during that same span.

    So yea, the Con man in the White House told a truth...but that truth is hardly something worth bragging about. Especially in a SOTU speech.

  2. As anonymous said, "the devil is in the details".

    "the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home."

    LOL That is rich.

  3. I had to turn Rachel off. It was just too much. She neither shows you not tells you enough of anything to truly make one believe she's correct in anything she is saying.

  4. Yesterday, Barack Obama spoke to employees of a Motorola plant in Chandler AZ. He praised the company for expanding.

    Two Arizona Republicans slammed him because they claimed the media would give a fawning implication that Obama had something to do with building the new Motorola plant, when it was strictly a local endeavor.

    Obama, like Gore, gets accused for making claims he didn't make.

  5. The other night Kessler's fact checking was weak and poorly prepared on the News Hour. Following one of his claims from a past Obama SOTU address, Gwen asked for an example and when he could not answer she apologized for stumping him.

  6. Here's what I don't get: Obama put in a stimulus to help break the recession. Although not as potent as one might have hoped, we stopped bleeding jobs and our GDP started going north instead of south. This followed a brief lag between the time Obama's policies were passed and the time they could have been expected to take effect.

    From where I sit Obama did indeed make the implicit claim that his policies were to a very real degree responsible and, not only that, he was perfectly right to do so.

    I can understand the liberal/left's anger at Politifact. What I don't understand is the l/l's passionate denial that Obama was justifiably claiming success.

  7. I blog often and I seriously appreciate your content.

    Your article has truly peaked my interest. I will book mark
    your site and keep checking for new details about once
    a week. I subscribed to your Feed as well.

    my page he has a good point

  8. Having read this I thought it was really enlightening. I appreciate you taking the time and energy to put this information
    together. I once again find myself personally spending a lot of time both reading and commenting.
    But so what, it was still worth it!

    Feel free to surf to my web blog: the full details