I’m not sure why you’re so unclear about what I’m saying. She chose 27 months. Why those months? Politifact assumes that she started from the depth of the job losses, and carries that assumption over to the other analysis. But if she chose 27 months for another reason, then Politifact’s analysis is wrong. The reason for her choice is the implicit premise. And I laid out an equally plausible one that would yield more favorable results.
Well the Republican campaign to convert the mainstream media into slobbering useless tools has been a grand success to date. By calling the mainstream media “liberal” they have over time bullyied the mainstream media into accepting any counterclaim to a democratic claim as equally weighty regardless of its nature, thus achieving “balanced and objective” journalism. Even if one claim is a blatant falsehood or misrepresentation (see: Swiftboating, and many other similar episodes over the last ten years) both claims get reported as having equal weight.
So why should the conservatives/Republicans not go after fact checkers, if they keep injecting an unwelcome note of truth and accuracy into political debates? The conservatives/Republicans have got everything to gain and nothing to lose.
When the media can’t even call out their blatant lies for being seen as “liberally biased”, then we know that they have won. Oh wait, that has already happened. Liberally biased media my ass.
Ryan didn’t mischaracterize the truth. Ryan didn’t stretch the facts. He didn’t make a false claim, speak in prevarications, or twist the truth. HE LIED. And the media is loathe to say so.
The headlines after the RNC, in any rational world, would be, “Paul Ryan’s speech filled with verifiable lies”
imho, the quality of Politifact articles varies so widely that they cannot be considered a reliable source; it can be difficult to tell their great articles from their terrible ones, and a lot of the time it just comes down to reader bias.
You posted earlier that the “Truth-o-Meter” reading often bears no resemblance to what is actually written in the article. I agree with this completely, though I think you chose your examples poorly.
Actually, the media is doing a much better job this time around. They seem to have drawn a line in the sand and are defending it. They keep hammering the Republicans for the obvious lies.
If they weren’t, there would be no need for these embarrassing attacks on the “fact checkers” by the Republicans.
Yeah, but even with Ryan’s speech, conservative bloggers are already talking about how, for example, that plant technically WAS closed under Obama, and how he sorta kinda DID say something that could be construed as a promise, etc. etc.
So they STILL see “liberal bias,” because they are SURE that Ryan didn’t tell a single lie.
But reading is H-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-R-R-R-R-D!
It’s much less of a PITA to just accept the designation of “fact-checker” as a pejorative.
I guess the “Opinion” tab on top of the story didn’t tip you off? This is not a news story…which should be obvious.
Well, it is certainly the case that conservatives do not tell the truth well. I guess that’s what he meant.
You do? So you’re saying that December 23rd, 2008 happened after President Obama was sworn in?
http://i47.tinypic.com/2jg2olt.jpg
Cutter was wrong.
We’ve seen private sector job growth for 29 months, not 27. And she chose that time period very clearly because she was talking about … wait for it … that time period.
“Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in”: TRUE
“… and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around”: TRUE
“… and over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs.”: TRUE
“That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery.”: TRUE
“… in the Reagan recovery.”: Arguably TRUE. Reagan waited an entire year before he even admitted the economy was tanking under his policies and agreed to take any action at all. The job losses we suffered while he fiddled are directly attributable to him, so when we’re talking about which president’s fiscal policies should start counting towards job creation (or loss), Reagan has to be held accountable for what he cost in jobs before he finally got off his ass and did something about it. Barack Obama isn’t responsible for the irresponsible policies that caused the massive job losses he walked into; he’s only responsible for what his policies affected.
There’s been some improvement this election season, though not as much as there should be.
Dave Weigel, Slate.com:
“incredible string of false or misleading statements”
Paul Ryan’s speech included an incredible string of false or misleading statements.
Jonathan Cohn, the New Republic:
The Most Dishonest Convention Speech … Ever?
Michael Tomasky, the Daily Beast:
“Paul Ryan pushed American politics into new territory with his convention speech, effectively daring Democrats and the media to call him out on his string of blatant falsehoods”
Michael Tomasky on Paul Ryan’s Convention Speech and His Web of Lies.
Jonathan Bernstein, the Washington Post:
Paul Ryan fails – the truth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryan-fails----the-truth/2012/08/29/bbfe1eac-f254-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_blog.html
AP:
FACT CHECK: Convention speakers stray from reality
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-oHGoQbH0RmoY7rNL47-I6BYziA?docId=dc7b2d4bcfab405989965fd9505a1aff
Dan Amira, NY Magazine:
Paul Ryan Bets on the Ignorance of America
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryan-rnc-speech-lies-fact-check.
Fox News contributor, Sally Kohn:
“Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz252BejeYA
Washington Post Editorial Board:
Mr. Ryan’s misleading speech
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-ryans-speech-effective-maybe-but-definitely-misleading/2012/08/30/a9b4e690-f227-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html?hpid=z4
“Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention contained several false claims and misleading statements.”
Ryan's VP Spin - FactCheck.org factcheck.org/…
Andrew Sullivan, the Daily Beast:
The lies and lies of Paul Ryan
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-lies-of-paul-ryan.html
James Downie, Washington Post:
Paul Ryan’s breathtakingly dishonest speech
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/paul-ryans-dishonest-speech/2012/08/30/16bb62d8-f24f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html
James Fallow, Atlantic
Paul Ryan and the post truth convention
Robert Schlesinger, US News
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/08/29/paul-ryan-repeats-auto-bailout-medicare-lies
Juan Cole:
Top Ten Repeated Paul Ryan Lies
The Guardian:
Paul Ryan’s speech: a round-up of his most audacious untruths
Charles Pierce, Esquire:
Paul Ryan Is the Newest New Nixon, a Moocher Belied
Josh Barro, Bloomberg
Paul Ryan’s Hypocritical Attack on Barack Obama
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-30/paul-ryan-s-hypocritical-attack-on-barack-obama.html
William Saletan, Slate.com
Why I’m breaking up with Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan’s Medicare flip-flop is a betrayal of conservatism.
John Nichols, CBSnews.com
They love the lies Paul Ryan tells
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57503785/they-love-the-lies-paul-ryan-tells/
Rekha Basu, Des Moines Register:
Half the truth often is a full lie for Paul Ryan
Henry Blodget, Business Insider
Paul Ryan’s Speech Proves The New Political Truth: It’s Fine To Lie
The Week
The media coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech: 15 euphemisms for ‘lying’
Jean Williams, Examiner.com
RNC audience thrilled by Paul Ryan’s self-serving and deceitful speech
StockBot by Examiner.com - Stock Examiner bot by Examiner.com
and-deceitful-speech
If you read nothing else from that list, William Saletan’s Slate piece is a Must Read. But first read his post from 2 weeks ago, “Why I Love Paul Ryan.”
*"He’s what a Republican should be: an honest, open-minded, solution-oriented fiscal conservative.
"A wonderful thing has happened for this country. Paul Ryan will be the Republican nominee for vice president.
“Ryan is a real fiscal conservative. He isn’t just another Tea-Party ideologue spouting dogma about less government and the magic of free enterprise. He has actually crunched the numbers and laid out long-term budget proposals. My liberal friends point out that Ryan’s plan leaves many details unclear. That’s true. But show me another Republican who has addressed the nation’s fiscal problems as candidly and precisely as Ryan has. He’s got the least detailed budget proposal out there, except for all the others. …”*
It’s truly remarkable what an honest set of ears will admit to actually hearing, as opposed to those with their fingers in their ears, saying “lalalalalaliberalliarsIcan’thearyoulalalala.”
They’re idiots. December 23rd, 2008 came before January 20th, 2009. Period.
The GM plant in Janesville produced SUVs and light trucks.
One shift was cut in June 2008. Many workers lost their jobs.
Production of SUVs ended in December 2008. Most of the remaining workers lost their jobs.
Production of light trucks ended in April 2009. The few remaining workers lost their jobs.
The Janesville plant is still owned by GM as a standby plant.
Obama was elected in November 2008 and took office in January 2009.
Those are the facts. Not so hard, is it? Longer than a soundbite, but a short summary.
What did Obama say about the Janesville plant, and when? You could look to see what his words were. That can be fact checked objectively.
Obama was a candidate for president at the time.
What did Ryan say that Obama said about the plant? Again that could be fact checked objectively.
That was in August 2012 at the RNC. Ryan was accepting the nomination of his party to be a VP candidate at the time.
I don’t read those statements as Obama promising to save the Janesville plant. As a presidential candidate he expressed that, with government’s help, he sees long term prospects for the Janesville plant.
But neither do I read Ryan’s statement as claiming Obama closed the plant or promised to save the plant. He said that Obama came to office in tough economic times and the recovery has been slow with many Americans out of work, including those who formerly worked at the Janseville plant.
A somewhat balanced view, IMHO, of the whole affair:
NBC News’s Mark Murray More Nuanced On Janesville GM Plant Closing Than MSNBC Crowd, But Still Misleads Viewers
And how does this relate to the “fact checker” issue?
Ezra Klein, who MSNBC calls on to “fact check”*, got it wrong. He claimed:
While production slowed in June 2008, hundreds of GM workers were still building SUVs until December 2008.
*Klein fact checks welfare work requirement video link
Are you shitting me, dude?
1.) I don’t need a timeline. The plant effectively WENT OUT OF BUSINESS on December 23rd, 2008 and a skeleton crew stayed behind to FINISH a single order for a customer that hadn’t yet been filled. You don’t get to parse the word “closed” to pretend that Barack Obama had anything to do with that.
2.) How about you highlight the part of Ryan’s speech where he, you know, said what you claim he doesn’t say.
“And that’s how it is in so many towns where the recovery that was promised is no where in sight.”
The man did not promise recovery anywhere and he certainly didn’t promise it in Janesville, the place he was using as an example of this so-called broken promise that was NEVER promised.
Paul Ryan LIED. Accept it.
That is exactly my point. Shift cut in June 2008. SUV production ended December 2008. Light truck assembly ended April 2009. The facts speak for themselves.
Shayna wants to parse what the word “closed” means to fit a particular political agenda.
A fact checker should, IMHO, just state the facts and leave it at that. The reader can dress up the facts with whatever interpretation he/she likes from there.
Do I think Obama could have changed the course of what happened to the Janesville plant by April 2009? In my opinion, no way. I don’t think he had a damn thing to do with the layoffs and shutdown at the Janesville Assembly Plant.
Oh my God. It really is a coordinated GOP strategy. It really has come to this. Attack the fact checkers.
All talk about the Washington Post one being bad, therefore fact-checkers are bad.
Politifact’s got problems. Their analyses aren’t bad, but their ratings don’t make any sense. Take the most recent one:
“By the time (Mitt Romney) left office, Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation.”
They rate this statement half true. It’s not half true. It’s false. Massachusetts was in the middle of the pack in job creation when Romney left office. Something Politifact acknowledges:
But then also rates “half true” since they believe Romney isn’t responsible for job growth.
These ratings are random, and fact checkers should not be engaging in this kind of analysis. they should be analyzing whether claims are true or not, not whether they are “fair”. “True” and “false” can be decided objectively. “Fair” and “Unfair” cannot be. That’s where the biases come into play.
Wow. Those links are confusing complexity with political debateability.
It’s really not debateable that Romney’s ad concerning Obama’s waivers contains several important and central falsehoods. That’s a fact. The problem is, it turns out to be a fact which it takes some complex thinking to understand. And the op-eds linked above play with that complexity to make it look more debateable. Very sad!
On the other hand, I really don’t like how the fact checkers “rate” falsehoods. Just detail the falsehoods. The “ratings” are so plainly subjective they just end up giving the people rated an excuse to call the fact-checkers political.
Oh shit, I just posted almost exactly the same thoughts as adaher.
I take it back! I take it back! 
I really can’t blame the Repubicans for going after the fact checkers, they’ve played the media so successfully over the last few decades that it’s only reasonable to assume anything is possible. The problem, I think, is that they want to reach the undecideds. They lie so much that their base has learned to doublethink, but the undecideds might still be persuaded by pesky facts. So, an attack on fact checkers.