# Opinion Masquerading as "Fact-checking" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2015, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235 "2015-08-07T13:19:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/21 "2015-08-07T21:12:27Z")
As a strongly liberal poster, I endorse this OP. I don’t necessarily agree with **Shodan** ’s claim that it’s all due to the liberal-leaning MSM. I think it’s certainly explicable just by rushed deadlines and basic incompetence. But I can’t prove that one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/22 "2015-08-07T22:19:01Z")
What they need to do with fact checking is make the caveats more clear, the way Cecil does in his columns. Disagreeing with proven facts is just cause for ridicule. Disagreeing with expert predictions is not. It’s going out on a limb, but it’s not “false”. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/23 "2015-08-07T22:42:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Fact-checking is not about “ferreting out absurd claims”. It’s about verifying the facts being claimed. Ferreting out absurd claims is also important, but it’s a different matter. > > You need to distinguish between supposed “Republican” claims that “ACA would crash the economy”, and the specific statement from Bush that this fact checker was checking.To the extent that any particular claim is “hard to prove”, then it’s not a matter for fact-checkers and needs to be dealt with via the assessments of economists and other experts. I’d say that this falls under fact checking, because Jeb’s 4% amounts to fantasy. I can promise unlimited sunny days during my administration if I’m elected president, but just because there is a statistical chance that it’ll happen, doesn’t mean I’m not full of shit for saying it. In this case, Jeb’s opinion is marvelously unlikely. If he didn’t want horseshit to be called on it, he shouldn’t have assigned a number. “This dick salve will add two inches in two days. But that’s just my opinion, man.” ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/24 "2015-08-07T23:11:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > _:shrugs:_ > > The mainstream media (apart from Fox) is liberal, and they tend to present Democratic spin as fact and Republican spin as lies. > > Quote: > BUSH: “You get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that doesn’t suppress wages and kill jobs.” > > THE FACTS: According to the Labor Department, the unemployment rate was 9.9 percent in March 2010, when Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. In June of this year, it had fallen to 5.3 percent. The economy has added more than 12 million jobs since March 2010. > > Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. > > Regards, > Shodan Fact Checker is not making a _post hoc_ claim; he is not saying that unemployment has fallen _because of_ the ACA. Rather, Fact Checker is citing lower unemployment figures _as evidence_ that Jeb Bush’s Republican spin is a lie. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/25 "2015-08-07T23:13:40Z")
ACA is not actually fully in effect though. The employer mandate doesn’t go into effect until this current signup period, and given that it’s an election year, what do you think the odds are that the PResident will actually allow it to take effect? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/26 "2015-08-07T23:20:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Fact-checking is not about “ferreting out absurd claims”. It’s about verifying the facts being claimed. Ferreting out absurd claims is also important, but it’s a different matter. If you restrict fact checking to the literal checking of facts, true. But for the most part political discourse is fact-free, and if fact checking organizations did this they would have a lot of time on their hands. The province of fact checking has now grown to cover absurd claims - and this is not a party-oriented thing. If fact checkers said that the claims they were checking were facts, and that their response was absolutely factual, there would be a problem. But your examples indicate that they don’t. If Bush had said that most economists agreed with him then the response would be that this “fact” was not true - but Bush is way too smart to make any such claim. > [@](#): > > You need to distinguish between supposed “Republican” claims that “ACA would crash the economy”, and the specific statement from Bush that this fact checker was checking.To the extent that any particular claim is “hard to prove”, then it’s not a matter for fact-checkers and needs to be dealt with via the assessments of economists and other experts. The fact checkers report on the assessments of economists. Bush’s comment has to be considered in the now common Republican strategy of treating their failed predictions as if they came true. Do you think that a claim that ACA is a horrible failure can or cannot be fact checked? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/27 "2015-08-07T23:26:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > As a strongly liberal poster, I endorse this OP. > > I don’t necessarily agree with **Shodan** ’s claim that it’s all due to the liberal-leaning MSM. I think it’s certainly explicable just by rushed deadlines and basic incompetence. But I can’t prove that one way or the other. When liberals make absurd claims, and fact checkers call them on it, I’m all for it also. If some candidate claims that increasing the minimum wage to $15 will significantly cut unemployment, I’m happy that a fact checker says that while the impact on employment is not clear, there is no evidence that such a move will significantly decrease it. Those aren’t facts either, but it is a valid response. So is mentioning if there are a significant number of economists who think that this will increase unemployment. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/28 "2015-08-07T23:27:25Z")
Here’s one case where Politifact succumbed to political bullshit: > **[PolitiFact - Carson says U.S. protection promises led Ukraine to give up its...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/07/ben-carson/carson-says-usprotection-promises-led-ukraine-give/)** > > Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson might be a superb neurosurgeon, but how well that has prepared him for the Carson deserves a “Half True” for this one. He says we promised to protect Ukraine as a condition of them giving up their nukes. That’s not totally true, because we never made them part of NATO or anything. But Poiltifact treats the word “assurances”(as distinguished from “guarantee”), as basically meaningless. But it’s not. Assurance: a positive declaration intended to give confidence; a promise [https://search.yahoo.com/search;\_ylt=AmQDpukfN3WAETPu2XHkU3SbvZx4?p=define+assurance&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1](https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AmQDpukfN3WAETPu2XHkU3SbvZx4?p=define+assurance&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1) Now I understand that Carson isn’t a politician or a lawyer, so words mean things to him. No reason for Politifact to recognize bullshit as fact, even if it’s accepted beltway bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/29 "2015-08-07T23:29:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > ACA is not actually fully in effect though. The employer mandate doesn’t go into effect until this current signup period, and given that it’s an election year, what do you think the odds are that the PResident will actually allow it to take effect? So, are you predicting that employer mandates will cause significant unemployment? Can we fact check you on that later? ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/30 "2015-08-07T23:31:38Z")
From OP: > [@](#): > > JEB BUSH, on his goal of 4 percent economic growth: “We can do this.” > > THE FACTS: Most economists say the U.S. under any president is unlikely to grow consistently at even close to 4 percent, largely due to the difficulty of overcoming decades-long trends. Well, now that I’ve bashed Bush I ought to be fair about it and stick up for him if it’s appropriate (ugh- stick up for a Republican). According to the following cite US GDP increased by over 4% for four straight years 1997-2000: [Annual growth of the Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States from 1990 to 2014](http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/) Fact Checker needs to do better than just flip us off with a “most economists say” line. If 95% of them say so, well OK, but if only 55% say so, not OK, and either way it would be nice for a link that tries to explain the reasoning in a form that the unwashed masses might be able to comprehend. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/31 "2015-08-07T23:37:47Z")
My favorite was in 2012 when the AP “fact-checked” a statement Bill Clinton made about Mitt Romney by stating that Bill lied about Monica so shouldn’t talk about anybody else. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/32 "2015-08-07T23:38:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here’s one case where Politifact succumbed to political bullshit: > > [PolitiFact | Carson says U.S. protection promises led Ukraine to give up its nukes](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/07/ben-carson/carson-says-usprotection-promises-led-ukraine-give/) > > Carson deserves a “Half True” for this one. He says we promised to protect Ukraine as a condition of them giving up their nukes. That’s not totally true, because we never made them part of NATO or anything. But Poiltifact treats the word “assurances”(as distinguished from “guarantee”), as basically meaningless. But it’s not. > > Assurance: > > a positive declaration intended to give confidence; a promise > > [define assurance - Yahoo Search Results](https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AmQDpukfN3WAETPu2XHkU3SbvZx4?p=define+assurance&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1) > > Now I understand that Carson isn’t a politician or a lawyer, so words mean things to him. No reason for Politifact to recognize bullshit as fact, even if it’s accepted beltway bullshit. You didn’t actually _read_ the article, did you? > [@](#): > > The answer to the first question is: not really. As for promised protections, the signed documents tell us that America pledged not to attack Ukraine, and that’s quite different from a promise to defend it. > > While Carson called Ukraine a nuclear-armed state, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, told PolitiFact that there’s a big difference between housing a bunch of warheads and being able to fire them. > > Not only did Moscow hold the launch codes, but its troops had removed the firing systems on every warhead that was kept in storage in Ukraine. > > Pifer writes that American diplomats went so far as to make sure that the Russians and Ukrainians understood specifically that the English meaning of “assurance” was not the same as a “guarantee.” > > In short, the United States never promised to protect Ukraine. All it did was promise not to attack it. Read the _whole_ article. I’ve probably quoted too much already. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/33 "2015-08-08T01:35:15Z")
I hate bad fact-checking. For that matter, I hate most fact-checking because it’s gotten so bad. I think Rachel Maddow used to have a segment about how lousy a job that Politifact was doing. They’d basically say that everything individually was true and then claim that the whole thing was a half-truth or worse. They fact-check because it’s easier than doing real reporting or analysis. I ignore it because they’re all so bad at it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235/34 "2015-08-08T02:17:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, are you predicting that employer mandates will cause significant unemployment? Can we fact check you on that later? I don’t know if it will or not. If they delay it again, it’s obvious the answer is yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opinion-masquerading-as-fact-checking/727235.md?page=1)