Does anyone know of any fact-checking of factcheck.org?

[ambushed]

Does anyone know of any scrupulous analysis of the accuracy and impartiality of factcheck.org?

Granted, there’s a veneer of impartiality, but I’ve seen several “facts” there debunked elsewhere, such as in the New York Times. And personally speaking, I’ve found several other examples of where factcheck.org contradicts more authoritative sources, such as real encyclopedias (not Wikipedia) and reference books.

Factcheck.org is just one particular newspaper’s evaluation of things, right? It’s not an independent collection of experts or anything, also right? So on what basis should they be considered objective and reliable?

There are many entries that don’t jibe with other reliable sources, (just one example being Snopes.com). And if you do a Google search for factcheck.org, you find one whole hell of a lot more links there from conservative and Republican pages than any other political persuasion! I can’t help doubting that that would be the case if they were truly impartial and accurate.

But let me repeat my objective “General Question” rather than to start a debate: Does anyone know of any scrupulous analysis of the accuracy and impartiality of factcheck.org?

[WF_Tomba]

@ambushed

Does anyone know of any scrupulous analysis of the accuracy and impartiality of factcheck.org?

Granted, there’s a veneer of impartiality, but I’ve seen several “facts” there debunked elsewhere, such as in the New York Times. And personally speaking, I’ve found several other examples of where factcheck.org contradicts more authoritative sources, such as real encyclopedias (not Wikipedia) and reference books.

I don’t know of any such scrupulous analysis, but can you give us some examples of the contradictions you’re talking about?

[silenus]

You can start here.

[WF_Tomba]

@silenus

You can start here.

From that link:

Which brings us to the ad’s most insidious conflation. By flashing those quotes about the “completely false” and “misleading” attacks on Palin over an image of Obama’s face–as the announcer warns that “they’ve just begun,” no less–McCain is suggesting that FactCheck.org attributed the attacks to Obama himself. But as the organization noted earlier today, “there is no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind any of the wild accusations that we critiqued.” They continue: “there is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a “racist,” or that he is proposing to tax water. The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown.” Earlier this year, McCain spoke out against the Obama rumors; recently, Obama has denounced the Palin smears, as well. For Crystal City to suddenly imply that Obama is behind this stuff is completely disingenuous.

That is about a misleading ad by one of the campaigns that quotes factcheck.org. It says nothing about the accuracy of factcheck.org itself.