Politifact is biased

Originally posted by no1marauder
So she (Fiorina) was wrong to say: "In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people."

if you want to harp on sound bites, let's have a 20-page thread on what Obama thinks of Middle America.

is Fiorina including layoffs due to the merger with Compaq?

Originally posted by sh76
Since that big brouhaha over politifact a few weeks ago, I've been looking at the site more and more and I hereby retract my earlier assertion that the site is neutral.

http://politifact.com/

Every rating they make can be justified in a vacuum, but after reading hundreds of their articles, I now believe that they judge statements made by conservatives sli ...[text shortened]... that there's some level of underlying double standard.

if Politifact (and FactCheck) were biased but wanted to appear (and claim to be) nonbiased, you'd expect them to toss out some minor points about the side they actually favored, while making hash over major points on the side they actually opposed. is that happening?

Whitman has got Clinton talking about Brown's record on Prop 13 on her local TV ads.

Originally posted by sh76
no1: She laid off 30,000 people.

sh: Yes, but she hired more than that so it's unfair to talk about the 30,000 in a vacuum

no1: She admitted to laying off 30,000 people

sh: Yes, but every company lays off people and although she did lay off 30,000 people it's unfair to look at that fact drawn out of its context

no1: You're full of crap. She admitted ...[text shortened]... f 30,000 people.

🙄

If I wanted to talk to a broken record, I'd call my mother in law.

In its response to the Boxer ad, the Fiorina campaign claims the only numbers that are relevant are the ones that show that in October 1999, HP had about 84,400 employees worldwide; and in October 2005, the company had 150,000 employees worldwide -- so that under Fiorina's leadership HP nearly doubled its number of employees worldwide.

It's not that simple. For one, there was the Compaq merger. Pre-merger, the companies had a combined workforce of 148,100.

It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad. A company as large as HP is very dynamic, so it's possible that the initial layoffs resulted in a stronger company that contributed to job growth in the long run. That's good in the macro sense, but it doesn't cancel the fact that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. So we rate the claim Mostly True.

I think 'Mostly True' is about right.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper

In its response to the Boxer ad, the Fiorina campaign claims the only numbers that are relevant are the ones that show that in October 1999, HP had about 84,400 employees worldwide; and in October 2005, the company had 150,000 employees worldwide -- so that under Fiorina's leadership HP nearly doubled its number of employees worldwide.

It ...[text shortened]... obs. So we rate the claim Mostly True.

I think 'Mostly True' is about right.

"But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad. "

Politifact is a fact-checking organization, and they're using the term "MAY" for verifiable facts? they can't check it?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper

In its response to the Boxer ad, the Fiorina campaign claims the only numbers that are relevant are the ones that show that in October 1999, HP had about 84,400 employees worldwide; and in October 2005, the company had 150,000 employees worldwide -- so that under Fiorina's leadership HP nearly doubled its number of employees worldwide.

It ...[text shortened]... obs. So we rate the claim Mostly True.

I think 'Mostly True' is about right.

It is terrible when unethical reporters omits vital information like here the fact that Fiorina hired two for everyone that was laid off!

Look at this example; there is a running competition and let's call the two runners the Winner and the Looser.

The report in the Looser's hometown paper:
"Our runner Looser got the second place and the rival Winner was the from the end."

Statement is correct, but misleading and shows poor journalism since it failes to tell that there were only two runners.

This is very common practice in today's newsmedia.

Sincerely,

Harri / Luck

Originally posted by no1marauder
WTF? In a 2006 interview Fiorina herself said:

In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people.


I'd say Mostly True is generous ................ to the Republican.

Man (just returning from Vegas) to his wife:
"Honey, I lost $29,500."

Wife:
"WTF?! How could you do that to us? That $30,000 was our nest egg!"

Husband:
"I know, I know. I suck."

Wife:
"Well, at least give me the $500 to I can off myself on bad crack and a week-long heroin trip."

Husband:
"$500? No, you misunderstood. Here's $32,000."

Wife:
"I thought you lost all but $500?"

Husband:
"At one point or another, yes, I did. But I won it all back. And then some. Still need that $500, or can I go back next weekend?"

Originally posted by sh76
Since that big brouhaha over politifact a few weeks ago, I've been looking at the site more and more and I hereby retract my earlier assertion that the site is neutral.

http://politifact.com/

Every rating they make can be justified in a vacuum, but after reading hundreds of their articles, I now believe that they judge statements made by conservatives sli ...[text shortened]... that there's some level of underlying double standard.

I don't see the problem. Everybody knows conservatives are bastards.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I don't see the problem. Everybody knows conservatives are bastards.

But you are one of that description yourself, whatever your political affiliations may be.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
But you are one of that description yourself, whatever your political affiliations may be.

SR, Do you not realize that shav says these things precisely because he can get a rise out of people like you by doing so?

Really, for months, shav was basically toned down and we'd seen very few of these sorts of posts. But then you started a thread for the sole purpose of giving shav attention for his inflammatory posts.

Did you really, really, think this was going to stop him or egg him on?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper

In its response to the Boxer ad, the Fiorina campaign claims the only numbers that are relevant are the ones that show that in October 1999, HP had about 84,400 employees worldwide; and in October 2005, the company had 150,000 employees worldwide -- so that under Fiorina's leadership HP nearly doubled its number of employees worldwide.

It obs. So we rate the claim Mostly True.

I think 'Mostly True' is about right.

Let's assume.

What about the other examples?

What about the point about the general tone of the ratings?

When this came up a few weeks ago, I chimed into defend politifact. After weeks of reading it, I do think they have a subtle liberal bias. Do you agree?


Edit: In any case:

It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger

So, as a result of a merger, 30,000 jobs became redundant and, for the health of the new company, needed to be eliminated. Then, all those jobs were regained and then some in short order.

Is the claim that she laid off 30,000 people a fair one in a vacuum? Really. Is it a fair claim?

Originally posted by sh76
After weeks of reading it, I do think they have a subtle liberal bias.

How does one assess the harm done by - and come to terms with - 'subtle bias'?

Originally posted by FMF
How does one assess the harm done by - and come to terms with - 'subtle bias'?

I would say one assesses it by determining whether it causes the individual to apply a double standard.

Juxtapose the Fiorina layoff rating with this one on a George Will claim:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/14/george-will/george-will-says-tax-cuts-wealthy-cost-less-over-1/

George Will says tax cuts for wealthy cost less over 10 years than stimulus did in one year

Rated "barely true" because:

While they concede

First, we'll look at whether the upper-income tax cuts cost $700 billion over 10 years, as Will said. The president's fiscal year 2011 budget categorizes three tax provisions as being targeted to upper-income Americans: expanding the 28 percent bracket and reinstating the 36 percent and 39.6 percent bracket; reinstating the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for taxpayers with income over $250,000 (for married couples) and $200,000 (for single taxpayers); and imposing a 20 percent capital gains and dividend tax rate for those above those income thresholds.

According to the president's budget, ending these three tax breaks would reduce the deficit by more than $678 billion over 10 years. So the reverse -- continuing them -- should cost the government about $678 billion over the same time period. While other calculations have included other factors, we think it's reasonable for Will to use this figure from the president's own budget. And while Will is off a bit on the numbers -- saying $700 billion instead of the actual $678 billion -- the difference between the two figures doesn't undermine the comparison he's trying to make. So let's call this part of the statement accurate.

Now, how does the stimulus compare? The updated total cost, as determined by the Congressional Budget Office in August 2010, is $814 billion. (That's up from the initial estimate of $787 billion at the time the bill was passed.)

$814B is more than $678B. Right?

So, why is Will's statement only "barely true"?

Just as the upper-income tax cuts are being charged against the budget over several years, so too is the stimulus, as different funding streams are spent and tax breaks exercised.

In the end:

Ultimately, we feel that Will had a point worth making -- that the 10-year cost of the upper-income tax cuts was lower than the total cost of the stimulus. But he overplayed his hand by suggesting that Obama obligated more in one year than the tax-cut extensions would cost over 10.

Okay, let's look at the relevant part of Will's actual statement:

...add less to the deficit than Obama added with the stimulus in one year

Did Will say it will all be spent in one year? No. Will said it adds to the deficit "in one year." In fact, it could be said to have added to the deficit as soon as congress allocated the funds. It could be said to have happened in one afternoon, in fact.

Politifact concedes the basic underlying point, mischaractertizes Will's assertion* and rates the statement as "barely true" for perhaps leading a non-careful reader to believe something that plainly does not logically flow from the original statement.


Is this "barely true" statement really worse than the "mostly true" statement that "As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers" when, in fact, she created more jobs than were lost?


* Look at the subtle change:

Will: add less to the deficit than

Politifact's paraphrase: cost less