Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Advertising

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Who's My Legislator?

Virginia Blogs
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blue Ridge Caucus
Coarse Cracked Corn
Crew of 42
DemRulz
Dixie Pig
Equality Loudoun
Greater Greater Washington
Loudoun Progress
Moonhowlings
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Pilot on Politics" blog
Richmonder
Richmond Sunlight
RTD Virginia Politics blog
Roanoke Times blog
Shad Plank
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll


Find more about Weather in Arlington, VA
Click for weather forecast

Was PolitiFact.com unfair to Terry McAuliffe?

by: Goldmanusa

Sun May 22, 2011 at 12:21:49 PM EDT


By Paul Goldman

While what is commonly called "Political Fact Check" is a terrific addition to the politics here in Virginia, their article today starts okay, but ends up very unfair to Terry McAuliffe and raises serious questions the organization should consider answering. Terry made an observation about Governor McDonnell's job creation record - which has basically created a job for writing job-creation press releases about a non-existent job creation record - which PolitiFact.com found to be true. They found it to be true because it was true, and based on good research.

PolitiFact.com exists to do this kind of "fact checking" to improve the level of discourse in our politics. So far, on the purely fact-checking side of things, they seem to be even-handed, using their so-called "Truth-O-Meter" to praise/pan claims in a fair manner regardless of the claimer's political persuasion.

That's good and I applaud them.

But  they went further, not exactly "jumping the shark" but surely jumping a large swordfish. After finding that Terry had been telling the truth,  they ventured into the role of political pundit/commentator/GOP campaign operative with this conclusion:

Goldmanusa :: Was PolitiFact.com unfair to Terry McAuliffe?
To sum up:

McAuliffe said that since McDonnell became governor in January 2010, the state's population growth has outpaced its job growth.

McDonnell is a Republican. McAuliffe does not note that the same trend existed when his fellow Democrat Tim Kaine was governor from from [sic] 2006 to 2010. Economists say governors have little control over economic conditions. ...

Those points aside, McDonnell bills himself as a job-creating governor. McAuliffe accurately summarized one set of statistics about employment in Virginia during McDonnell's term. We rate his statement True." [Emphasis added.].

The Goldman sum-up-

"Those points aside" and "one set of statistics" makes the point  more eloquently than I ever could: As the Judge would say in a court of law, what exactly is your point there counselor? Those quoted words have both absolutely no place in their analysis nor any relevance. Terry addressed McDonnell's record, a perfectly legitimate inquiry. PolitiFact, in effect, said it wasn't fair for Terry to address the record as he did without mentioning Kaine in the same context or every possible related set of statistics: Why stop with Kaine under that theory, why not go all the way back to former Governor Wilder or George Allen, or Benjamin Franklin's first almanac??

PolitiFact goes further by saying, "Economists say governors have little control over economic conditions."

Oh really? Surely PolitiFact.com knows that taken to it's logical conclusion, this suggests neither Governor McDonnell - nor a Governor McAuliffe - can have much Newtonian impact on key components of "economic conditions" like job creation except at the margins. So you get my drift here: They are basically mouthing the Cuccinelli line in a 2013 campaign against Terry, namely that any gubernatorial candidate claiming to have a lot of new government programs able to bring a lot of new jobs is just blowing smoke big time.

Why is PolitiFact.com entering the zone of GOP campaign consultant? Let the GOP make their claim if they want, it's not PolitiFact.com's job to mouth it or run it up the flag-pole to see if anyone salutes.

Their role - according to their own mission statement - is to determine whether what Terry said about Governor McDonnell is true or something lesser.

He had no obligation to mention Kaine or any other previous Governor: indeed, who says the situations are comparable to the McDonnell years for mathematical or any other analysis? He isn't running for the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.    

I rate PolitiFact.com as having Set Itself on Fire.    

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This Is a Continuation of a Reporting Bias (0.00 / 0)
that may have started before the Pants On Fire evaluation of McAuliffe's transportation debt statement. In that critique, while one may defend the loose use of the term "plan" to justify the assessment, one cannot reasonably let the "plan" itself pass muster.

The $300 million a year bond "plan" was never envisioned for indirectly repaying unfunded retirement obligations using insurance premium taxes. That unfunded obligation did not pay for roads alone. It paid a political bill called on McDonnell. This is apples and oranges. In that story too, Tim Kaine is paraded out.

When McAuliffe used hyperbole to make his point, he erred when he judged that anyone's sense of reality would ground them enough to understand his meaning. Clearly, PolitiFact either missed it or had an agenda. My opinion was that they missed it because, like too often in the media, some business sense was missing. Now, Mr. Goldman has changed that opinion.


Providing context = GOP operation? (0.00 / 0)
lol

What context? (0.00 / 0)

     Why does the poster call their unnecesssary comments context? PolitiFact is suppose to examine the truth of the assertion made. Either Terry made a truthful statement or he didn't. Assume the circumstances under Kaine were different. Would that make Terry's statement less truthful?No, it would not, you don't need to do a Galileo "thought experiment" to prove that.

     For example, assume I state that Lance Armstrong won the Tour De France 7 times. Either he did or he didn't. PolitiFact then says what I said was true, but Lance Armstrong is rumored to have used drugs. Would saying he used drugs change the truthfulness of my assertion? No, it wouldn't. But would it put my assertion in context especially if someone pointed out that another cyclist won 4 times without using drugs?

       Yes, it would. But it doesn't change anything since I am not required to list all the information that might put my assertation into a different context.

      But the poster would apparently say: The additional information about drugs needed to be put there. For what purpose?

      Sure, it is good know that maybe Lance had a little help and yes, this might change my opinion of his achievement. But that wasn't the issue on the table: maybe it should have been, but those checking for the  truth" of what I said don't get to make that judgment. For once they are allowed to decide what context they feel is required of me, then they are really rendering not a statement about the truth of my assertion but their own opinion on the facts I presented.

       That's a legitimate point of view, but NOT the one Politifact claims to be making.

       Terry questioned McDonnell's record on job creation. He told the truth. It may be that other information, readily available would change one's view of what he said if they knew about it.

        That's probably true of just about everything anyone says: There is probably some other "context" to put it in. "

         Kaine was Governor during the Stock Market Plunge and near depression: McDonnell came after the 2009 stimulus provided huge new funding. Why not include that context since the stimulus has lead to a lot of jobs according to federal statistics which McDonnell gets to count but Kaine doesn't.

         Why didn't PolitiFact make that point? Or a hundred others? At what point does the poster say "enough" context?
          My point therefore: One's posters's context is another poster's something else.

          This why PolitiFact.com is only suppose to deal with the truth or falsity of the statement, not try to choose a context they prefer.

          Bottom line: McDonnell's record on jobs is what it is statisically, how DEMS/GOPPERS/INDIES/WRITERS judge his performance in this area is a matter of judgment shaped by various "contexts."

           These are two different things.

           PolitiFact wants to have a reputation for judging the facts on truth or falsity, not how those facts may be used in different contexts by different politicians.

           PolitiFact issued an opinion on whether Terry put his facts into a fair context. That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't rely on the truth or falsity of what he said.

           PolitiFact either wants to be known as an organization that can be trusted to give you the truth about the facts, or their true opinion of how the facts were presented.

       


[ Parent ]
First of all, (0.00 / 0)
First of all, I don't know why you're choosing to use this example to tell PolitiFact.com what their mission is supposed to be.

Second, there's a big difference between a statement being factually true and the point behind the reason the statement was made in the first place. Everyone here is involved in politics. Everyone here understands that difference.

McAuliffe made a factually true statement, but he made it to try to make a point that is less legitimate. The fact that an organization like PolitiFact.com pointed that out doesn't make it an undercover GOP operation, nor does the simple act of pointing out other facts make them non-credible.

It seems to me that politicians on both sides routinely use every trick they can to mislead voters, when not outright lying, by only telling half the story or using misleading statistics that don't actually mean what listeners are supposed to think they mean. An impartial observer that can look at "factually true" statements but provide a more reality-based context for that statement seems to be an invaluable service for voters. I'm sorry that you think they should shut up because in this one case it made someone on your "team" look bad.  


undercover GOP operation (0.00 / 0)
"Politicians on both sides" is a tactic that supports Republican voter suppression efforts and should not even be posted on a Democratic blog.  

[ Parent ]
Advertising

8th CD Dem Candidates
*Don Beyer *Lavern Chatman *Adam Ebbin *Bill Euille *Charniele Herring *Patrick Hope *Derek Hyra *Mark Levine *Alfonso Lopez *Bruce Shuttleworth *Mark Sickles *Nancy Najarian *Satish Korpe
FOLLOW BLUE VIRGINIA on SOCIAL MEDIA


Donate to Blue Virginia

About
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever), and "troll ratings abuse" (e.g., "troll" rating someone simply because you disagree with their argument) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at lowell@raisingkaine.com and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.



RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page


Real Time Web Analytics
Powered by: SoapBlox