Mitt Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse, uttered these very words - "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" and sadly enough, that line of thinking seems to be commonplace in conservative circles.
As I noted in an earlier blog, there are currently 125 e-mails concerning President Barack Obama that are circulating about the internet. Of these, between 104 and 108 are false (4 are undecided at this point).
A recent study was released, where a roughly equal number of claims made by both Republicans and Democrats in office was collected via the fact-checking site Politifact.com (179 Democrats and 191 Republicans). Politifact's worst grade is labeled "Pants on Fire". Of the 98 statements that received either a "False" or "Pants on Fire" grade, 74 were made by Republicans (76%).
The Washington Post fact-checks politicians' statements by rewarding them with between one and four Pinocchios (four Pinnochios being the worst grade as far as truth-telling goes). From September of 2007 through December of 2011, Republicans received 436 Pinocchios while Democrats received just 291 (roughly 60/40 ratio)
Just today on the conservative website RedState, the front-page contributor had this to say:
"I've pretty much had it with the grotesque turn the various 'fact checking' organizations have taken. 'Politifact' is little more than a bunch of shills, devoid of even the vestiges of integrity, that sling about 'pants on fire' ratings to any GOP or conservative politician. The Washington Post is no exception..."
He closed by saying:
"In the past we've had a policy of banning people who argue in bad faith. As Politifact, and the whole menagerie of 'fact checking' organizations have demonstrated themselves to be slavishly attached to the Administration's nether regions I will consider quoting any any of them, in a non-ironic way, as being evidence of arguing in bad faith and worthy of a band."
That's right - if you fact-check a statement, you could very well see yourself being banned. It's not that conservative Republican politicians lie a great deal; it's more that fact-checking sites are liberally-biased. That seems to be what many conservative Republicans believe anyway. Like the Romney pollster said, it seems as if many such individuals follow suit and declare, "We're not going to let our beliefs be dictated by fact-checkers," as it's better for one to believe they're right even when proven wrong than for them to prove they're wrong at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-_n_1836139.html
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
http://www.thenation.com/article/167930/reality-bites-republicans
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/11/quote-a-factchecker-earn-a-ban/
As I noted in an earlier blog, there are currently 125 e-mails concerning President Barack Obama that are circulating about the internet. Of these, between 104 and 108 are false (4 are undecided at this point).
A recent study was released, where a roughly equal number of claims made by both Republicans and Democrats in office was collected via the fact-checking site Politifact.com (179 Democrats and 191 Republicans). Politifact's worst grade is labeled "Pants on Fire". Of the 98 statements that received either a "False" or "Pants on Fire" grade, 74 were made by Republicans (76%).
The Washington Post fact-checks politicians' statements by rewarding them with between one and four Pinocchios (four Pinnochios being the worst grade as far as truth-telling goes). From September of 2007 through December of 2011, Republicans received 436 Pinocchios while Democrats received just 291 (roughly 60/40 ratio)
Just today on the conservative website RedState, the front-page contributor had this to say:
"I've pretty much had it with the grotesque turn the various 'fact checking' organizations have taken. 'Politifact' is little more than a bunch of shills, devoid of even the vestiges of integrity, that sling about 'pants on fire' ratings to any GOP or conservative politician. The Washington Post is no exception..."
He closed by saying:
"In the past we've had a policy of banning people who argue in bad faith. As Politifact, and the whole menagerie of 'fact checking' organizations have demonstrated themselves to be slavishly attached to the Administration's nether regions I will consider quoting any any of them, in a non-ironic way, as being evidence of arguing in bad faith and worthy of a band."
That's right - if you fact-check a statement, you could very well see yourself being banned. It's not that conservative Republican politicians lie a great deal; it's more that fact-checking sites are liberally-biased. That seems to be what many conservative Republicans believe anyway. Like the Romney pollster said, it seems as if many such individuals follow suit and declare, "We're not going to let our beliefs be dictated by fact-checkers," as it's better for one to believe they're right even when proven wrong than for them to prove they're wrong at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-_n_1836139.html
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
http://www.thenation.com/article/167930/reality-bites-republicans
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/11/quote-a-factchecker-earn-a-ban/
Comments
Post a Comment