# Is there a political watchdog out there to judge policy in a neutral way? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 17, 2016, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913 "2016-12-17T07:07:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/21 "2016-12-27T02:12:12Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > It might also help if there was a metric where everyone agreed on a fact, or close to the same facts, but gave different interpretations based on different perspectives/baggages. > > left/right/center etc > > There is actually a podcast with that name lead by Josh Barrow that has David Frum as a frequent guest. As **Fiveyearlurker** points out politics is mostly a matter of opinion, but when politics runs into subjects were science has an input then politics should yield to science. In those cases I do recommend to check people like science writer Peter Hadfield (AKA Potholer54) > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct some of the false scientific information that is now prevalent on the internet, and explain in simple terms the conclusions of real scientific research. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the... He has taken liberals to task when exaggerating some scientific issues, but even he does notice how the Republicans are the ones becoming more willful ignorants and that will eventually have a negative effect on our economy because we do need to use the best tools we have to deal with issues like biology, medicine or climate change were science is a big part of the solution. One good video to start is the one about [“Why the media screw up science Part 1: Sources”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk) The important lesson is to realize that even mainstream sources of information will get the science wrong on occasion, but less reliable ones will make a sport of being wrong because they have an agenda. But the tools to help us identify if the information is a valid one is not beyond the capability of the majority or viewers or readers of the Internet. And many of the lessons there apply to other subjects. Identifying bad sources of information can be done because many times the original sources show up as not supporting the spin that the sites or blogs claimed that the original source did. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/22 "2016-12-27T03:48:49Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > It’s this sort of issue that led me to leave the Republican party. There are two “issues” that are facts. Evolution and climate change. How to handle these issues might be open to opinion, but the Republican party decided that despite these both being objective facts that they would choose not to believe in either one. If they are not a fact based party, then I couldn’t be a part of it anymore. How about tax cuts? It seems to be Republican gospel that tax cuts (especially for “job creators”) pay for themselves because of the increased economic activity that is supposed to inevitably follow. The matter may not be quite as scientifically determined as evolution and climate change, but we can go back and run the numbers on previous tax cuts. Everything I’ve read is that the revenue did not recover, and yet the gospel remains unchanged. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/23 "2016-12-27T04:04:05Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > How about tax cuts? It seems to be Republican gospel that tax cuts (especially for “job creators”) pay for themselves because of the increased economic activity that is supposed to inevitably follow. The matter may not be quite as scientifically determined as evolution and climate change, but we can go back and run the numbers on previous tax cuts. Everything I’ve read is that the revenue did not recover, and yet the gospel remains unchanged. Same old Republican bait-and-switch. Mouth the benefits that could possibly maybe happen in an alternate universe on a Tuesday of the full moon, while business and the wealthy get the actual benefits. And they will continue to do so until their supporters stop buying into it, which won’t happen until the overall average IQ of the populace increases by a few points. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/24 "2016-12-27T04:45:32Z")
The latest election made Hadfield put a new video that shows again the lesson that we all have the tools to check just a bit more to see who is giving us proper information: From the last minutes of the short video that shows the steps taken to deal with one virulent bit of fake news: > [@](#): > > Other bloggers are well-known for having all their claims properly vetted but let’s face it, if the authors of the ACP paper hadn’t contacted Tom Nelson and if he hadn’t issued a retraction, Watts would still be under the impression that the Right Heat blog was properly vetted and it would still be on the What’s Up With That blog. > > Actually the only clue that the whole thing is bunkum its a small note there saying it has an error… One error? And you have to scroll down to the update to find out that the error **is the entire thing** … maybe all… maybe not… According to this letter from Duhamel which is also printed in the update it could be “censorship or duplicitous scientists going back on what they wrote in the paper”. Says the man who couldn’t understand the paper… > > **Anthony, why not do what Tom Nelson did and cross out the bits of your story that were wrong so that people can still see what was originally written but they’ll understand it was all nonsense? They won’t do what this guy did [A screen shot of a poster posting the now clearly fake news] and copy the Watt’s Up With That page a year later without any indication that the whole thing is baloney?** > > I’ve been warning about the danger of relying on these bloggers for years but thanks to the recent presidential election this warning has finally gone mainstream. We’ve seen fake news stories about the two candidates and the phrase post truth applied to the world of social media, but it’s not just funny sites that are disseminating fake news; it’s far more widespread than a blogger that makes a mistake,\*\* whether intentionally or through sloppy research or just plain ignorance; his blog is copied by another blogger and copied by another blogger until millions of people believe it.\*\* > > This is fake news being passed around by people who can’t be bothered to check it so you can’t trust the people who generate this fake news to get it right or to correct it. **It’s up to us to do that by checking where these stories come from when they land on Twitter or Facebook and it’s not always from Macedonia…** ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/25 "2016-12-28T23:15:25Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > This is what bugs me. We find nitpicks, which may be legitimate if rare instances of politifact not getting things exactly perfectly correct. And, then we throw up our hands and say, well, Politifact is roughly equivalent to infowars, which is nonsense. Politifact is a good source of honest information as the OP asks for. They get things right the vast majority of the time, and they show their work and their sources. The characterization that this difference in outcome is merely a nitpick is part of the problem with Politifact. This is not to say that places like infowars are better, or even in the same league, but the item identified above is not a nitpick. It’s also not about getting things exactly perfectly correct. They essentially took the same claim and concluded in the opposite. That’s a complete failure. Now you may say this failure is rare but mischaracterizing it as a nitpick or as not exactly perfectly correct is part of the problem. I’m reminded of a time way back in highschool where I cheated on an English assignment. We were supposed to read Billy Budd and write an essay on it. Suffice to say I did not complete the assignment, but a friend who had the exact same assignment in the previous year did. He was well liked by the teacher, and on his paper, he received an A with positive comments about the work. I took his essay word for word, put my name on it, and submitted it. The teacher didn’t care for me very much and I got a grade of a D. Sure maybe it’s an isolated incident where the teacher let her personal feelings influence her assessment, but as far as I’m concerned one incident was sufficient to be suspicious about all of her grading processes. I remembered this thread when I read this article by Politifact: [Do seven children per day die from guns?](http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/27/jackie-speier/examining-claim-7-children-day-die-gun-violence/) From the article: > [@](#): > > To examine Speier’s claim, we searched the database for the number of young people who died in connection with guns from the start of 2013 through 2015. Those are the most recent available years following the Sandy Hook shooting. > > We found 7,838 deaths in connection with firearms for people ages 0 through 19. > > That works out to 7.15 deaths a day during this three-year period – which matches Speier’s claim of “more than seven” per day. > > These include all types of gun deaths from accidents to homicides to suicides. About 36 percent resulted from suicides. > > Some might take issue with Speier lumping in 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds as children. > > Gun deaths for these two ages accounted for nearly half of the 7,838 young people killed in the two-year period. > > … > > Speier’s statement is on the right track. But it could have used some clarifications. > > We rate it Mostly True. So here Congresswoman Speier references Sandy Hook in which tragically elementary school children and staff were killed, and makes a claim about the number of children killed each day. But in her claim, the only way it is remotely true is if adults aged 18 and 19 are included. And Politifact rates it as mostly true. Again, such poor evaluations may be rare. The rarity seems to be slanted in one direction. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2016, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/26 "2016-12-29T03:47:00Z")
To use another example of Politifact’s unreliability: they rated the FACTUAL assertion that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms as “Half True.” Look, you can make all the arguments you like in favor abortion, but one fact remains: Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammogram. Supporters who claimed they do were, at best, misinformed. In this case, ALL the facts went against Planned Parenthood , but Politifact tried to decrease words and create middle ground that didn’t exist. No way I’ll ever treat them as neutral, honest impartial judges of truth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/27 "2016-12-29T04:59:40Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > To use another example of Politifact’s unreliability: they rated the FACTUAL assertion that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms as “Half True.” > > Look, you can make all the arguments you like in favor abortion, but one fact remains: Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammogram. Supporters who claimed they do were, at best, misinformed. > > In this case, ALL the facts went against Planned Parenthood , but Politifact tried to decrease words and create middle ground that didn’t exist. > > No way I’ll ever treat them as neutral, honest impartial judges of truth. Not the whole story, one reason why they reached for the half true rating was this: > **[Numbers don't tell whole story on mammogram claim](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/21/alliance-defending-freedom/numbers-right-mammogram-claim-missing-context/)** > > Covertly filmed videos showing fake brokers discussing terms for procuring fetal tissue have prompted federal efforts to > [@](#): > > But the standard is for a doctor to provide the clinical, physical exam and then refer the patient for the screening at a mammography center – and it has been since 1970, Brawley said. I would also do not think qualifying something half true would make it the truth as you are trying to claim Politifact did. > [@](#): > > Federal data and Planned Parenthood’s own documents back up the claim from the Alliance Defending Freedom. > > However, that narrow bit of information ignores that Planned Parenthood physicians perform the clinical exams that lead to referrals for a mammogram or other specialized breast care. > > The physical exam is a necessary step in the process of getting the screening, although ADF has a valid point that other physicians could provide that piece of the process. > > **That puts the claim in the realm that won’t make either side happy** : partially accurate but misleading without additional details. We rate the claim Half True. Once one realizes that the context was to counter this absolutist line from the opponents of Planned Parenthood: > [@](#): > > “Zero Planned Parenthood facilities are licensed to do mammograms. Planned Parenthood, women don’t need you!” > > — Alliance Defending Freedom on Monday, August 3rd, 2015 in a Twitter post One has to realize that it is not only some misguided defenders of PP who got it wrong, it was also that opponents also are resorting to even deny that PP does examinations that lead to referrals for mammograms. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/28 "2016-12-29T14:42:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > To use another example of Politifact’s unreliability: they rated the FACTUAL assertion that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms as “Half True.” > > Look, you can make all the arguments you like in favor abortion, but one fact remains: Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammogram. Supporters who claimed they do were, at best, misinformed. > > In this case, ALL the facts went against Planned Parenthood , but Politifact tried to decrease words and create middle ground that didn’t exist. > > No way I’ll ever treat them as neutral, honest impartial judges of truth. Yeah, not seeing it. “Half true” is exactly the right answer here. If the examples of “bias” in this thread (fewer than five rulings in question, as I’m seeing) are the absolute best examples of the thousands of Politifact’s rulings, then I think we answered the OP’s question and the answer is that Politifact is damn good at what they do. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/29 "2016-12-29T15:35:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The characterization that this difference in outcome is merely a nitpick is part of the problem with Politifact. /snip Meh, unemployment figures and real unemployment figures are two separate statistics, U-3 and U-6 as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That one word addition by Bernie Sanders changes the entire statement and can easily be the difference between Mostly False and Mostly True. ---
**Author:** ![ElderSign](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eldersign/32/8263_2.png) [@ElderSign](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElderSign)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/30 "2016-12-29T16:08:32Z")
The main problem with Politifact and Factcheck is that both will select quotes which usually further a certain agenda and they can’t see the forest for the trees when they start parsing words. And it just so happens that Republicans have more Pants of Fire ratings. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/31 "2016-12-29T19:14:45Z")
If Senator X votes for a policy because it will do A, and Senator Y votes for the same policy because he believes it will do B, and Senator Z votes for the same policy because it is supposed to do C, how does the neutral watchdog determine which outcomes the policy was “supposed” to have? And if Senator W voted against the policy, but now that it has been in place a few years, he agrees with it and believes it caused D, how does that jibe with goals A, B and C, and who decides which goal is the “real” goal of the policy and whether it worked as designed for some or any of them? ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/32 "2017-01-06T15:27:55Z")
The quip “who is checking Fact Check?” is cited by some on social media. My answer is everyone. The good thing about Polifact, Fact Check and Snopes is not their absolute evaluation. It is that they usually list their sources. You can go read the actual statements in most cases. You can evaluate how they decided if something was mostly true or mostly false. I doubt that many people who care enough to fact check are going to just look at the summary icon. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913/33 "2017-01-06T16:42:33Z")
I know people like to cheerlead for or deride Politifact around here but it really isn’t in the realm that the OP was describing. They don’t evaluate the effects of policy. That requires a heck of a lot more research and expertise than what they provide whether you like or distrust them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-political-watchdog-out-there-to-judge-policy-in-a-neutral-way/774913.md?page=1)