The Weekly Standard Attacks Fact Checkers (Part 1)

This is part 1 of a 3-part series entitled "The Weekly Standard Attacks Fact Checkers"

I am no stranger to The Weekly Standard's attacks on non-partisan fact checking sites. Recently, a relatively lengthy 3-page article caught my attention. The article, entitled "Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’," is another in a long running series of articles attempting to poison the well, and keep people from engaging in critical thinking with non-partisan fact checking sites. Online editor Mark Hemingway is the author of this 'masterpiece.'

Most of this article is a collection of unsubstantiated claims and slippery slope fallacies. However, they did attempt to give a few examples to help substantiate a few claims. I thought it would be helpful to take a look at them. Unfortunately, these examples fall short of proving anything other than Hemingway's desperation to challenge the credibility of neutral fact-checking sites.

TO READ IS TO FLY

Hemingway starts with a look at an AP Fact Check of the November 12, 2012 Republican presidential debate:

On Iran, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney suggested that the U.S. government should make it “very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.” Little did Romney realize that the AP is the final arbiter of America’s tactical military capabilities and can say with certainty that a military attack on Iran’s nuclear program should not be attempted. [AP:] “The U.S. certainly has military force readily at hand to destroy Iran’s known nuclear development sites in short order. This is highly unlikely, however, because of the strategic calculation that an attack would be counterproductive and ultimately ineffective, spawning retaliation against U.S. allies and forces in the region, and merely delaying eventual nuclear weapons development.”

Interestingly enough, the AP never used the words "should" nor "certainty." The word "should" only really exists in normative statements. However, it should be clear the statement was purely a positive (descriptive) statement, which should have been clear given the fact that the phrase used the keyword "is." It should also be noted the phrase "highly unlikely" should indicate that the AP is not "certain" either. Sadly, reading comprehension may be lost art.

Also fortunate for the savvy news consumer, the AP apparently has a better grasp of what America’s intelligence agencies do and do not know than Newt Gingrich, a man who used to be third in line for the presidency and has received countless classified intelligence briefings.

This is a stereotypical Argument From Authority, which is a fallacy in this case since Gingrich has been out of office for over a decade. Do I need to say that a lot has happened in both the fields of national defense and intelligence since then?
I will however point out that I am no fan of the AP's quick-response method. Is this what defense officials are saying? Experts? Additional details would be useful (although it may be less efficient).

At the debate, Gingrich suggested that there was room for improvement at America’s intelligence agencies, and noted in particular that we don’t have a reliable intelligence operation in Pakistan. The AP sprang to the defense of the CIA: “The U.S. killing of a succession of al Qaeda figures in Pakistan, none more prized by America than Osama bin Laden, demonstrates that the United States indeed gets vital and reliable intelligence out of Pakistan. While it may have been true when Gingrich left government in 1999 that the CIA’s spy network was limited, since 2001 the agency has dramatically expanded its on-the-ground operations worldwide,” the AP “fact check” concluded. The fact that bin Laden, the most wanted man on the planet, was living in a compound in Pakistan possibly for years may seem like a sign that our intelligence sources in the country leave something to be desired​—​but guess again, Newt.

Hemingway seems to be over-simplifying the quote a bit. Here is what Gingrich said: “We don’t have a reliable intelligence service. We don’t have independent intelligence in places like Pakistan. We rely on our supposed friends for intelligence. They may or may not be our friends. And the amount of information we might or might not have, might or might not be reliable.” As you can see, this is not just saying there is "room for improvement at America’s intelligence agencies." Gingrich is making the specific claim that that intelligence service in Pakistan is unreliable. What Hemingway fails to mention is that the AP partly AGREED with Gingrich: "Gingrich is right that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is an often-unreliable U.S. partner and elements of the country’s power structure have supported U.S. terrorist enemies. But as the bin Laden raid shows, the CIA is hardly impotent in its ability to operate alone in Pakistan." It is clear that the AP considers Gingrich's statement true, to a point. However they also wanted to let readers know that US Pakistani Intelligence is not completely unreliable. A Hemingway response of "probably" with absolutely no context towards intelligence reliability hardly challenges that claim. In fact, since the AP called US intelligence "often-unreliable," it would seem that the AP doesn't fully disagree that "our intelligence sources in the country leave something to be desired​." Does Hemingway realize not all Fact Checks produce the equivalent of a "false" rating? Here we have yet another case of poor reading comprehension.

To be continued in part 2 of "The Weekly Standard Attacks Fact Checkers"  

Note: As you may have noticed, I am no longer using the "Defending The Truth-O-Meter" series title. It made titles too long and I decided it was unnecessary.