Politifact is biased

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 slightly harsher than those made by liberals, in general.

Just from some recent ones:



http://politifact.com/personalities/barbara-boxer/

"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."

-Barbara Boxer

Rated: Mostly True

Given that during Fiorina's over-all tenure at HP, there was either a slight net gain in jobs over-all or an approximately equal number of hires and layoffs, a claim of 30,000 layoffs in a vacuum, even if there were over-all that many lay-offs, strikes me as substantially misleading. No way this should be rated better than "half true."


http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/17/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-raised-taxes-not-overall/

"Taxes went down under Jerry Brown."

- Jerry Brown

Rated: Mostly true

If you read the article, you'll see that the tax lowering, if any, was more a result of federal policy and Proposition 13, which Brown OPPOSED. At very best, this is a half truth. Personally, I'd rate it as barely true.



http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/sep/17/republican-governors-association/republican-governors-association-says-tom-barrett-/

Tom Barrett "voted for the largest tax increase in history ... raising taxes on gas and Social Security."

- Republican Gov. Assoc.

Rated: Barely True

Politifact tag line: "Economists and experts use a different measuring stick than political opponents do"

From the article: "The Times story does say that, but the full sentence contains a key phrase ignored by Schrimpf and the RGA. Here’s the full sentence (italics added): "So in actual dollars, the 1993 measure was the largest tax increase in American history.""

Uh, fellas, that makes the statement true. That it wasn't measured in % of GDP (their critcism), at best, makes it slightly misleading. This should be rated mostly true or at least half true.


Of the "pants on fire" ratings, almost all of them are statements made by conservatives. There are plenty of liberal statements on the "false" page that could have earned "pants on fire"s if the site makers were so inclined.


Yes, they do rate some liberals' statements as "pants on fire" and some conservatives' statements as true, and as I said, every rating they make can be defended in a vacuum. But the most I read that site, the more I sense that the same falsehoods that get conservatives "pants on fire"s get liberals "false"s and the same partial truths that get conservatives "barely true"s get liberals "half true"s and "mostly true"s. I'm not even sure this is intentional. Perhaps the authors' natural political inclinations are having a subtle effect. But the effect is there. I challenge anyone to read through a random 50 articles from that site and deny that there's some level of underlying double standard.

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.

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.

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.

But she hired more than that.

If go to Vegas and play the slots 1,000 times and win 10 times for $250 but lose all of that plus another $1,000 and later I come home and say "I won $250 in Vegas," what I'm saying is technically true, but am I being honest?

Originally posted by sh76
But she hired more than that.

If go to Vegas and play the slots 1,000 times and win 10 times for $250 but lose all of that plus another $1,000 and later I come home and say "I won $250 in Vegas," what I'm saying is technically true, but am I being honest?

Money is fungible; human beings are not. There is no question that 30,000 people were laid off by Fiorina. She admits it. The statement is True.

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.

I think he said that any specific claim could be defended in a vacuum.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Money is fungible; human beings are not. There is no question that 30,000 people were laid off by Fiorina. She admits it. The statement is True.

Every company has to lay off people at one point or another. If you hire 100 people and have to lay off 90 of them, you've created net jobs. It's hardly fair for people to shout that you've laid off 90 people when you created 100 jobs in the first place.

Originally posted by techsouth
I think he said that any specific claim could be defended in a vacuum.

Well, to be fair, I did use that as an example, so it's fair to call me on that.

I do maintain that the attack on Fiorina, while technically true, is very misleading. I believe that's what the "barely true" and "half true" ratings are for.

Originally posted by sh76
Every company has to lay off people at one point or another. If you hire 100 people and have to lay off 90 of them, you've created net jobs. It's hardly fair for people to shout that you've laid off 90 people when you created 100 jobs in the first place.

You're full of crap. Both Boxer AND Fiorina agree that she laid off 30,000 workers. During her tenure with the company, she "restructured" it with the result that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. She admits and even boasts about it.

"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."

-Barbara Boxer

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

-Carly Fiorina

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're full of crap. Both Boxer AND Fiorina agree that she laid off 30,000 workers. As soon as she took over the company, she "restructured" it with the result that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. She admits and even boasts about it.

"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."

-Barbara Boxer

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

-Carly Fiorina

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 to laying off 30,000 people.

🙄

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

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.

Your implication that the 30,000 layoffs were just normal turnover in an ongoing business is far more misleading and untruthful than any of the statements you cite from Politifact.

sh76: If you hire 100 people and have to lay off 90 of them, you've created net jobs. It's hardly fair for people to shout that you've laid off 90 people when you created 100 jobs in the first place.

Fiorina created no jobs in the first place at HP; she didn't start the company. She then decided to lay off 30,000 people. So your statements are deliberately misleading while Boxer's and Fiorina's in 2006 aren't.

If she was there when HP hired and fired, I think it is only fair to mention both if you want to comment about jobs.

Originally posted by Eladar
If she was there when HP hired and fired, I think it is only fair to mention both if you want to comment about jobs.

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

Originally posted by sh76
If I wanted to talk to a broken record, I'd call my mother in law.

No need. Your mother-in-law posts here as MacSwain.

Originally posted by FMF
No need. Your mother-in-law posts here as MacSwain.

You know what's really scary?

For a presumed stab in the dark, that's not really all that far off.

Omniscient as usual, FMF.


PS: MacSwain, don't be offended. I like my mother in law. 😉

Originally posted by sh76
....

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

if you hooked no1m with your mother-in-law, they'd cancel each other out and it'd definitely be worth the cost of a phone card.