Connect with us

Top 10 Facts About Politifact’s Lie

Published

on

Politifact yesterday earned itself a “Pants on Fire” award for declaring the statement that “Republicans voted to end Medicare” is the Lie of the Year. It isn’t. Here’s why.

So much has been written on Politfact’s decision to enter into the world of fake balance and opinion-posing-as-fact journalism. As a publisher and as a journalist, I applaud the words of Steve Bennen, Steve Bennen again, Dave Weigel, , Jamison Foser,  Igor Volsky, Paul Krugman, John Hudson, Digby, Jonathan Chait, Jamelle Bouie, Brian Beutler, and .

Read all their thoughts, if you haven’t already.

Here’s a roundup. The top 10 facts about Politfact’s Lie:

  • :
    “House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has spent the better part of this month running a ballot-stuffing campaign to get Politifact to label Democratic claims that he wants to “end Medicare” labeled as their “lie of the year” and today he succeeded as Politifact be clowns itself.”
  • Jamison Foser:
    “This is nonsensical hair-splitting. Medicare isn’t a broad concept; it’s a specific, concrete program. Ending it “as we know it” is ending it. Otherwise, ending it would require ending it as we don’t know it, which would be a neat trick.”
  • Jamison Foser:
    “False balance has the effect of a thumb on the scale in favor of the less meritorious position. Treating a falsehood and the truth as though they are equivalent gives lies — and the people who tell them — an advantage in the marketplace of ideas. It encourages politicians who lie to continue to lie, and those who tell the truth to start lying.”
  • Brian Beutler:
    “The reaction from Republicans has been muted so far — a sign, perhaps, that they don’t want to reopen this old wound. But back in their districts, when constituents grill them, Republicans will now have a compelling citation. It just happens to be a sham.”
  • Steve Bennen:
    “Medicare is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different — a voucher scheme. It would still be called ‘Medicare,’ but it wouldn’t be Medicare.It seems foolish to have to parse the meaning of the word ‘end,’ but if there’s a program, and it’s replaced with a different program, proponents brought an end to the original program. That’s what the verb means. I’ve been trying to think of the best analogy for this. How about this one: imagine someone owns a Ferrari. It’s expensive and drives beautifully, and the owner desperately wants to keep his car intact. Now imagine I took the car away, removed the metallic badge off the trunk that says ‘Ferrari,’ I stuck it on a golf cart, and I handed the owner the keys.“’Where’s my Ferrari?’ the owner would ask.“’It’s right here,’ I’d respond. ‘This has four wheels, a steering wheel, and pedals, and it says ‘Ferrari’ right there on the back.'”By PolitiFact’s reasoning, I haven’t actually replaced the car — and if you disagree, you’re a pants-on-fire liar.”
  • :
    “I think there’s still a way of persuading Politifact that they erred. Here’s why: Even if you agree with PolitiFact that the GOP plan wouldn’t have “ended” Medicare, the Dem claim that this is the case still can’t be shown to be a “lie.” That’s because this disagreement ultimately comes down to differing interpretations of known facts — and not to a difference over the facts themselves.”
  • Jonathan Chait:
    “Does the Republican plan indeed end Medicare? I would argue yes. But it’s obviously a question of interpretation, not fact. And the whole problem with Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” is that it doesn’t grasp this distinction. Politifact doesn’t even seem to understand the criteria for judging whether a claim is a question of opinion or a question of fact, let alone whether it is true.”
  • Paul Krugman:
    “The answer is, of course, obvious: the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other. So they’ve bent over backwards to appear ‘balanced’ — and in the process made themselves useless and irrelevant.”
  • Greg Sargent via Twitter :
    “If I bought Politifact and converted it into a direct mail enterprise, and you said I ended Politifact, you would be Liar of the Year.”
  • Finally, many who have written about this Politifact scandal have cited Politifact’s own reader poll — the one that was ballot-box stuffed by Paul Ryan — and suggested that it was from those top three lies — “elected,” as it were, by the general public, from which Politifact chose their “winner.”Politifact’s editor Bill Adair at 12:01 am on December 20 published “How we chose the 2011 Lie of the Year,” and in the second paragraph from the top clearly states, “How we chose the 2011 Lie of the Year.”Then, Adair spends the majority of the rest of the column detailing the readers’ votes process and results, and strongly suggests — really, leads readers to believe — Politifact chose the “winner” from the readers’ list, not from their total list of finalists.

    But now, Adair is walking back that obvious suggestion, and claiming the “winner” came from the finalists list.

    Really?

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Antisemitism Is Wrong, But’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Pilloried for Promoting Antisemitic Claim

Published

13 hours ago

on

May 1, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) was strongly criticized Wednesday after promoting a historically and biblically false, antisemitic claim while declaring antisemitism is wrong.

As the House voted on an antisemitism bill that would require the U.S. Dept. of Education to utilize a certain definition of antisemitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws, the far-right Christian nationalist congresswoman made her false claims on social media.

“Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,” Greene tweeted.

The definition of antisemitism the House bill wants to codify was created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Congresswoman Greene highlighted this specific text which she said she opposes: “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

READ MORE: MAGA State Superintendent Supports Chaplains in Public Schools – But Not From All Religions

What Greene is promoting is called “Jewish deicide,” the false and antisemitic claim that Jews killed Jesus Christ. Some who adhere to that false belief also believe all Jews throughout time, including in the present day, are responsible for Christ’s crucification.

Greene has a history of promoting antisemitism, including comparing mask mandates during the coronavirus pandemic to “gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”

Political commentator John Fugelsang set the record straight:

“If only you could read,” lamented Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. The Antisemitism Awareness Act “could not convict anyone for believing anything, even this historical and biblical inaccuracy. It only comes into play if there is unlawful discrimination based on this belief that targets a Jewish person. Do you understand that distinction @RepMTG ?”

READ MORE: DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

“Not surprising,” declared Jacob N. Kornbluh, the senior political reporter at The Forward, formerly the Jewish Daily Forward. “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been accused in the past of making antisemitic remarks — including her suggestion that a Jewish-funded space laser had sparked wildfires in California in 2018, voted against the GOP-led Antisemitism Awareness Act.”

Jewish Telegraphic Agency Washington Bureau Chief Ron Kampeas, an award-winning journalist, took a deeper dive into Greene’s remarks.

“Ok leave aside the snark. The obvious antisemitism is in saying ‘the Jews’ crucified Jesus when even according to the text she believes in it was a few leaders in a subset of a contemporary Jewish community. It is collective blame, the most obvious of bigotries.”

“The text she presumably predicates her case on, the New Testament,” he notes, “was when it was collated a political document at a time when Christians and Jews were competing for adherents and when it would have been plainly dangerous to blame Rome for the murder of God.”

“Yes,” Kampeas continues, “that take is obviously one that a fundamentalist would not embrace, but it is the objective and historical take, and *should* be available to Jews (and others!) as a means of explaining why Christian antisemitism exists, and why it is harmful.”

CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere also slammed Greene, saying she “is standing up for continuing to talk about Jews being responsible for the killing of Jesus. (John & Matthew refer to some Jews handing over Jesus to Pilate,not Herod. But also: many, including Pope Benedict, have called blaming Jews a misinterpretation)”

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

MAGA State Superintendent Supports Chaplains in Public Schools – But Not From All Religions

Published

15 hours ago

on

May 1, 2024

By

Visitors to Oklahoma’s State Schools Superintendent’s personal social media page will notice a post vowing to “ban Critical Race Theory, protect women’s sports, and fight for school choice,” a post linking to a Politico profile of him that reads, “Meet the state GOP official at the forefront of injecting religion into public schools,” a photo of him closely embracing a co-founder of the anti-government extremist group Moms for Liberty, and a video in which he declares, “Oklahoma is MAGA country.”

This is Ryan Walters, a far-right Republican Christian nationalist who is making a national name for himself.

“God has a place in public schools,” is how Politico described Walters’ focus.

Last week the Southern Poverty Law Center published an extensive profile of Walters, alleging “hateful rhetoric toward the LGBTQ+ community, calls to whitewash curriculum, efforts to ban books, and attempts to force Christian nationalist ideology into public school classrooms.”

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

“Walters is superintendent of public instruction, and public schools are supposed to serve students of all faiths, backgrounds and identities,” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, told SPLC.

Walters is supporting new legislation in Oklahoma that follows in Texas’ footsteps: allowing untrained, unlicensed, uncertified, and unregulated religious chaplains and ministers to be hired as official school counselors.

“We heard a lot of talk about a lot of those support staffs, people such as counselors, having shortages,” Rep. Kevin West, a Republican, said, KFOR reports. “I felt like this would be a good way to open that door to possibly get some help.”

Walters praised West, writing: “Allowing schools to have volunteer religious chaplains is a big help in giving students the support they need to be successful. Thank you to @KevinWestOKRep for being the House author for this bill. This passed the House yesterday and moves on to the Senate where @NathanDahm is leading the charge for this bill.”

As several Oklahoma news outlets report, there’s a wrinkle lawmakers may not have anticipated.

“With the Oklahoma House’s passage of Senate Bill 36, which permits the participation of uncertified chaplains in public schools, The Satanic Temple (TST) has announced its plans to have its Ministers in public schools in the Sooner State. If the bill advances through the Senate, this legislation will take effect on November 1, 2024. State Superintendent Ryan Walters, a vocal advocate for religious freedom in schools, has endorsed the legislation. The House approved SB 36 by a 54-37 vote on Wednesday,” a press release from The Satanic Temple reads. “The Satanic Temple, a federally recognized religious organization, has expressed its dedication to religious pluralism and community service.”

READ MORE: DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

Walters responded on social media to The Satanic Temple’s announcement.

“Satanists are not welcome in Oklahoma schools, but they are welcome to go to hell,” he wrote.

Former Lincoln Project executive director Fred Wellman served up an equally colorful response.

“Hahahaha!!! You are an idiot,” Wellman wrote. “How did you not see this coming? Satanists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Pastafarians…come one come all! After all you’re not trying to establish Christianity as the state religion are you? We had a whole ass revolution about that. There are history books about it…oh…right. Not your thing. What a fool.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) served up a warning.

“The state of Oklahoma cannot discriminate against people or groups based on their religious beliefs,” the non-profit group wrote. “Walters’ hateful message shows, one again, that he only believes in religious freedom for Christians and that he is unfit to serve in public office.”

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

 

Continue Reading

News

Potential Trump VP Pick Says ‘If You’re a Billionaire’ You Should Vote for Trump

Published

20 hours ago

on

May 1, 2024

By

One of the possible picks to be Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, seen as “rapidly ascending” the list, is urging billionaires to vote for the ex-president.

North Dakota Republican Governor Doug Burgum “is quickly moving up former President Trump’s list of possible vice presidential picks because Trump’s team believes he would be a safe choice who could attract moderate voters,” Axios reported on Sunday. “Burgum is on a long list of VP contenders, but Trump’s rising interest in the North Dakota governor has been clear in recent weeks — and reveals his latest thinking about how he thinks his running mate could help him with undecided voters.”

Praising Governor Burgum, the National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty on Monday wrote he was “the only candidate in 2024 to easily exceed expectations in the debates.”

“He is a well-liked governor from a small state. He projects seriousness and sobriety, two qualities Pence also had that were important to balance the 2016 Republican ticket. Burgum is also good at championing Republican policy, including our desperately needed policies of energy abundance and supply-side reform. He is also the right age — 67 — with no signs of slowing down. Burgum needs to survive the millions poured into opposition research, but, if he does, I think he would bring credit and balance to the Republican ticket.”

READ MORE: ‘Next Week, Absolutely’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Says She Will Move to Oust Speaker Johnson

On Tuesday, Gov. Burgum, appearing on Fox News, told Laura Ingraham, “when you see someone who cares this deeply about this country, what he’s going through and what the Democrats and the liberal media is putting him through, and how he gets up and fights for every day people in America every day, and then his policies are all in the right direction.”

“If you’re a billionaire and you care about your shareholders, you care about your family and your grandkids, you should be voting for someone that’s going to bring prosperity to America and peace to the world, that’s what President Trump is going to do, that’s what he did for us when he was president,” Burgum claimed.

The Hill adds, “Ingraham suggested a lot of billionaires are still planning to support President Biden, especially those that are the ‘Wall Street types.’”

Last year, asked if he would ever do business with Trump, Bergum told NBC News, “I don’t think so,” and added, “I just think that it’s important that you’re judged by the company you keep.”

Some reports call Bergum a billionaire, while Forbes last year reported it “estimates Burgum’s net worth to be at least $100 million.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.