# The Perils of Fact-Checking

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perils-of-fact-checking/634001>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [September 7, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perils-of-fact-checking/634001 "2012-09-07T16:09:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-perils-of-fact-checking/634001/1 "2012-09-07T16:09:45Z")

</div>

[Salon](http://www.salon.com/2012/09/06/the_aps_amazing_clinton_fact_check/) has an interesting piece about the AP’s “fact check” of Clinton’s Wednesday night speech. Not so much about Clinton but the inanities to which these supposed “fact checkers” go to achieve a mythical balance. Here are a few gems from the [original AP fact-check](http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-clinton-claims-compromise-stretch-043255807--election.html) of the speech:

> [@](#):
>
> CLINTON: “Their campaign pollster said, ‘We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.’ Now that is true. I couldn’t have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.”  
> THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were “legally accurate” but also allowed that he “misled people, including even my wife.”

The bit about Clinton may be true, but it’s not really a fact check–more of a playground-level taunt–“Yeah, but Clinton lied once too!”.

> [@](#):
>
> CLINTON: “When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. …Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is the enemy and compromise is weakness. One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.”
> 
> THE FACTS: From Clinton’s speech, voters would have no idea that the inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. Right from the beginning Obama brought in as his first chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along.
> 
> One of the more high-profile examples of a deal that fell apart was the outline of a proposed “grand bargain” budget agreement between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011.
> 
> The deal would have required compromise from both sides. It slashed domestic spending more than most Democrats wanted and would have raised some taxes, which most Republicans oppose.
> 
> Boehner couldn’t sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.
> 
> In another instance, Obama appointed a bipartisan group, known as the Simpsons-Bowles Commission, to recommend ways to fix major fiscal problems like Social Security and Medicare. The commission issued its recommendations but fell three votes short of formally endorsing them. And Obama mostly walked away from the report. He later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported.
> 
> But that ensured the tough compromises would not get made.
> 
> The problem with compromising in Washington is that there are few true moderates left in either party. The notion that Republicans are the only ones standing in the way of compromise is inaccurate.

This is bending over backwards to find some Obama equivalence to Republican intransigence. First off, Clinton is making a political statement that doesn’t seem to me to be a “fact” in the same way that, say, the claim that “Obama created 4.5 million jobs in the past 29 months”. Second, the fact check seems more like complaining analysis to justify the preordained beltway CW parroted in the final paragraph. Note, for example, the checker doesn’t mention who on the S-B comission voted against the plan (Hint: One of them is running for VP), and while he acknowledges that the tea-party faction scuttled the grand bargain, he laughably tries to make some democratic leaders accusing Obama of “going too far” somehow an equivalent factor in its demise.

With fact-checkers like these, I might have finally found something that I agree with the Romney campaign about. With lame fact-checking like this, these guys at the AP shouldn’t be dictating an inter-office memo, let alone a campaign strategy.