I wouldn’t mind that, but their lead was that the statement was false. And fact checker should only report on the facts. Others can add the editorializing.
The second part would have a bearing if their was evidence that Obama was in a rage, and not just annoyed. But rage requires strong evidence, and I’d call that statement false without such strong evidence.
I just checked YOUR facts, and CNN is not by any means calling it “a lie.” In fact, it says it is accurate. It just says there is more to the story, which is true. I think it’s perfectly legit to “clear up misimpressions.” To simply check off facts as true or false is kind of pointless.
Right, which is why I said the particular example you gave was wrong. But I do think that fact checkers should do more than mechanically churn out TRUE/FALSE statements. I mean, Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org are great fact checkers, and that’s primarily because they give a breakdown of their research and tell you all the facts about the situation instead of solely sticking to the exact wording of the claim.
Fair enough, but “Obama killed something just for annoying him” doesn’t exactly paint him in a much better light.
I withdraw my objection to this particular case. I only saw a clip before, and perhaps I missed an introductory statement indicating that it had a factual basis. But the point remains the same, fact checkers should stick to the facts.
I wouldn’t mind a factual statement that Obama killed something because it annoyed him. If it’s factual, it’s fine. I can easily disregard it as irrelevant.
This has probably been said already, but this strategy is not new. It’s the same as the charge of liberal media bias. Since that effort to work the refs was successful, why not try it again.
I mean think about how the concept of fact-checkers even came about? Shouldn’t fact checking be an essential defining element of all the media, rather than being farmed out to a few boutiques? The bulk of the media cannot be fact checkers because they would be accused of being biased against conservatives. Why shouldn’t the conservatives start attacking the fact checkers now?
But English isn’t formal logic. It’s context sensitive. The context the statement was uttered, the hidden assumptions, the implication its making – while they’re not overt many of them can be fact checked. It’s silly to say that fact checkers should stick to the overt claim, it does people a service to analyze the whole situation. If the statement says “10 million jobs were created in the last 4 years” and the implication of the context is “in America, due to a direct result of my policies,” then it’s absolutely important for the fact checkers to go “well, yes, 10 million jobs WERE created… if you count expats who were employed outside the country in areas not under his jurisdiction. And only 10% of those are estimated to be a direct result of the President’s administration.”
That’s not editorializing, that’s what fact checking is about.
Ok, but that wasn’t my problem with it. At the time that I thought they were leading with the claim that the statement was false it wasn’t based on any analysis of the actual numbers, simply pointing out how the net job increase was not as a high as the newly created jobs, which is not relevant to whether the statement was factual. I don’t have any problem with the talking heads deconstructing that and coming up with whatever they want, but I think if you’re going to call yourself a fact checker, then you stick to the facts and don’t insert an interpretation of the statement as a conclusion of it’s validity. This is non-partisan by the way, I don’t like it being done to favor either side. Fact checkers should be like the GQ of reporting, sticking to the facts, nitpicking details if necessary, but reducing things to a true or false conclusion independently of how the information may be used to mislead.
I think fact-checkers do a good job of explaining what they’re saying. They make things more clear, in a fair way. You can disregard whatever parts you don’t find useful.
I feel differently, but I’m not trying to change your opinion, simply to express my own. This is more about what I like or dislike than a matter of right or wrong.
I don’t fib on the boards for two very important reasons, first, I am the paragon and embodiment of truth and candor, and second, because I’d never get away with it.
The SDMB is a semi-organic machine for fact-checking. If you get away with a bullshit cite, its only because nobody gives a rat’s about what you are proving with it. Try to sneak in some shaky climate-denier bullshit, and Gigo will show you the true meaning of “data dump”, like getting shit on by a brontosaurus.
And then the President goes and tells a whopper:
“Sometimes they just make things up,” the President said on the stump. “I mean, somebody was challenging one of their ads — they made it up — about work and welfare. And every outlet said this is just not true. And they were asked about it and they said — one of their campaign people said, ‘We won’t have the fact-checkers dictate our campaign. We will not let the truth get in the way.’”
Mr. Obama was referring, as many other critics of the Romney campaign have, to a comment that its pollster, Neil Newhouse, made to reporters at the Republican convention on Tuesday, dismissive of those faulting the campaign’s television ads. What Mr. Newhouse actually said was, “These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
Mr. Newhouse did not say, “We will not let the truth get in the way.”
It’s interesting how the Democrat project. While the welfare ad is deceptive, it is not “made up”. The administration actually did loosen work requirements, it just doesn’t go as far as they claim. THe word for that is “exaggerate”. what the President did with that quote was actually just make something up. Exaggeration is dishonest, but purely making things up out of thin air is the most baldfaced lying of all.
I think you mean “apatosaurus”. 
The Obama campaign is currently running blatantly false Medicare ads that reference the first version of the Ryan plan rather than Romney’s current plan, or even Ryan’s current plan.
This is why I urge campaigns and their supporters to stop whining. This is the campaign these guys want to run, so let them.
The quotation mark should go after ‘campaign’. What comes after is Obama’s summary of the meaning of what was quoted.
ETA: But anyway, the fact checking websites went after the DNC speeches as well and many untruths were exposed.
When spoken, it sounds like he’s still quoting. Now if he’d said, “They will not let the truth get in the way”, it would be easy to understand.
The biggest Big Lie of this election campaign has been all the lying about lying. Liberals have a serious problem with that.
I agree that the quote, as spoken is easily misunderstood. But it is not a lie.
There are a lot of lies on the D side. This isn’t one of them.
That’s a real generous interpretation. Obama’s quote can only be misunderstood if you already knew the original quote. If you don’t, then you would definitely think that a Republican said, “We will not let the truth get in the way.”
Why would you think a Republican said “We will not…” when the quote was “They will not…?”
No, I would never under any circumstances think that any republican said “we will not let the truth get in the way,” especially in any public context. Indeed, I’d be extremely surprised to hear that anyone said it even in a private context.
The fact that it’s so blatantly unbelievable as a direct quotation makes it natural to assume it is Obama’s commentary, not a direct quotation.