The Weekly Standard Attacks Fact Checkers (Part 3)

 

This is part 3 of a 3-part series entitled "The Weekly Standard Attacks Fact Checkers." Part 1 can be read here. Part 2 can be read here. 

SEEN IT BEFORE

Hemingway later decides to mention a familiar article.  

While there’s been little examination of the broader phenomenon of media fact checking, the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs recently took a close look at PolitiFact. Here’s what they found:

"A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts. In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged “false” or “pants on fire” over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent)."

You can believe that Republicans lie more than three times as often as Democrats. Or you can believe that, at a minimum, PolitiFact is engaging in a great deal of selection bias, to say nothing of pushing tendentious arguments of its own.

At the very least, this is a nice little false dichotomy, I have already examined this "study" in a previous post¹ and found it to be shoddy work. The writer did not implement practically any controls in the study. He also dismissed or ignored alternate explanations for reasons that should have given him equal justification to dismiss his own hypothesized explanation. I'd venture to guess this article would be thrown out in a second if submitted to a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

On August 17, Kessler wrote an item supporting President Obama’s denial at a town hall in Iowa that Vice President Joe Biden had called Tea Party activists “terrorists” in a meeting with congressional Democrats. In the process, Kessler had singled out Politico for breaking the story. ...

After supplying a rudimentary summary of what happened, Kessler reached a conclusion that is at once unsure of itself and sharply judgmental. “Frankly, we are dubious that Biden actually said this. And if he did, he was simply echoing what another speaker said, in a private conversation, as opposed to making a public statement.” In response, Smith unloaded on Kessler. “Either [Biden] said it, or he didn’t. That’s the fact to check here. The way to check it is to report it out, not to attack the people who did report it out and label their reporting ‘dubious’ based on nothing more than instinct and the questionable and utterly self-interested word of politicians and their staffers.” Provoked by Kessler, Politico took the unusual step of actually detailing how the Biden story was nailed down. Politico maintains that Biden’s remarks were confirmed by five different sources in the room with Biden, and that they were in contact with the vice president’s office for hours before the story ran. Biden’s office had ample opportunity to answer the reporters’ account before it ran and didn’t dispute it. ...

But instead of looking at these facts, it appears Glenn Kessler engaged in what his colleague Greg Sargent referred to as all “the usual he-said-she-said crap that often mars political reporting”​—​but with the extra dollop of sanctimony that comes from writing under the “pseudo-scientific banner” of “The Fact Checker.”

To a certain degree, they do have a point. However, Kessler has also pointed out the article was never meant as an attack on Politico, just "as a guide for readers on how to tell the difference between verified fact and journalistic rumor." Such a distinction is necessary for readers to make informed decisions over how much credibility they should give a story. He reported that there were conflicting accounts of what happened, which should be no surprise given the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Politico's sources could have easily misinterpreted what he said, which is all to plausible. If I said "dealing with you is like dealing with a child," does that mean I actually called you a "child"? A few people overhearing my conversation may have thought so, even if that was not my intent. One could argue I implicitly called you a child, but it should be very clear how easily they could be constructing a straw man. Joe Biden agreeing with the idea that "negotiating with Tea Partiers is reminiscent of negotiations with terrorists" is a far cry from him explicitly calling them "terrorists." The difference is crucial to any adult who feels they have matured past the age where they may accuse their friends of "saying an icky word!" These are the kinds of issues brought up by Kessler, and an examination of the available evidence submitted by politico, as well as Kessler (in his original article), shows one should be skeptical of any headline that reads “Biden: Tea Stands for ‘Terrorist.’” It should also be noted that Kessler even admitted he did a poor job of writing the article.

AND HERE COMES THE BIAS

Well that is the last of the examples given by Hemingway to help support their barrage of claims. After a few more paragraphs of unsubstantiated claims, Hemingway finished with this little doozie:

So with 2012 just around the corner, brace yourself for a fact-checking deluge. Just remember: The fact checker is less often a referee than a fan with a rooting interest in the outcome.

So if it wasn't completely clear before, Hemingway is claiming these fact checkers are biased. And given the fact that all instances mentioned in this article are against Republicans, its clear he is accusing them of being left-biased. Any evidence provided in this article has been shown to be shoddy at best. In addition, one would expect that, if these people REALLY have a vested interest in liberal success, they wouldn't post articles that really damage strong liberal talking points.

• One popular talking point against Obama, during this election season, is that he has failed to keep his promises. Obama tried to counter this by saying he has kept 60% of his promises, to which Politifact gave him a "false". The real number is 30%. He has kept more of his promises than people give him credit for, and only broken about 10%, so there is a grain of truth to this. However, since he doubled the actual number, he rated a false. Remember how Hemingway complained when Rand Paul was given a false for quadrupling is numbers? I wonder why there wasn't equal outrage from Hemingway over a relatively less-deserved "false" rating for president Obama? Is it because Obama isn't conservative and thus does not fit into his liberal bias paradigm?
• Politifact, likely the most target of these sites for liberal bias claims often cites conservative/libertarian think tanks such as Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute (btw, also notice the many popular Democratic talking points that are debunked in these articles).
• The 2011 "Lie of The Year" was the incredibly popular campaign claim from Democrats that "Republicans plan on eliminating medicare." This claim already helped propel at least one Democrat to victory in a heavily Republican district. Seeing just how valuable this message is to Democrats in the coming election, it seems highly unlikely the message would be debunked by anyone remotely interested in Democratic success, let alone be given the less-than-coveted "Lie of The Year" award.

And of course, these are only a few examples that show just how absurd the Hemingway liberal bias claim really is. Could these fact checking sites be producing these just to try and make themselves look non-partisan? Outside the subjective choice of "Lie of The Year," that would seem to be quite the claim to substantiate, and is itself an example of the popular ad hoc fallacy, "evidence against bias is evidence for bias." However, without this kind of conspiratorial response, it seems the best explanation is that these fact checkers are in fact not fans "with a rooting interest in the outcome."

SO WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE?

This all isn't to say that fact checkers are not prone to subjectivity, or mistakes. They are human after all. At the very least, this should underscore the need for readers to never suspend a reasonable amount of skepticism, even when reading fact checks. However, unlike everyday political pundits, fact checkers still attempt to remain accurate and objective. If politicians and media pundits did the same, perhaps fact checkers would no longer be so sorely needed.

Overall, the central thesis of Hemingway's article appears to be that, if a politician says his/her claim is opinion, it should be free from the scrutiny of fact checkers. However, the practice of fact checking is essentially a form of Skepticism. Fact checkers assume the role of non-partisan skeptics who concern themselves with reality first and foremost. A common practice of skeptics is to highlight common fallacies so others can spot them. This underlies the fact that a person can come to accept a false belief based on fallacies, as well as facts. For example, Politifact pointed out that Rand Paul failed to provide context with his claim, which is essentially a form of cherry-picking. It is also the job of the skeptic to help others identify shoddy or less-than-optimal evidence, which should inspire doubts in skeptical minded individuals. Glen Kessler did just this when he pointed out the difference between a public statement and private rumor. In general, if a statement contains fallacies, can be verified true or false, or leaves out important context, there is no reason why skeptics should not be able to critique said statement. Should the breadth of a false or fallacious statement mean it should be left alone? Should skeptics take off their critical thinking caps when reading the Opinion page? Any good Skeptic knows that all statements are up for scrutiny because statements that do not reflect reality deserve no place within public discourse. As practicing skeptics, political fact checkers should be expected to hold to this very same principle, exposing bunk in political discussion, regardless of where it occurs.




¹ - Update 1-16-12: I have also completed a comprehensive critique of this article as well.