I never thought I’d hear a grown man say he was “comfortable that ‘pants on fire’ was the right call.” But that’s what PolitiFact editor and St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief Bill Adair told me today.
We were discussing a controversial ruling his site issued on a political ad put out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The ad, which aims to scare seniors by declaring that Republicans have just voted to end Medicare, was given the lowest possible rating on PolitiFact’s “Truth-o-meter,” which defines statements, documents, ads, and other such declarations as True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False, or, for the most egregiously misleading cases, like the DCCC ad, “Pants on Fire.”
The decision proved contentious—a number of readers wrote to PolitiFact to complain that the site “blew it on this one” or that PolitiFact had “jumped the shark.” Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo took issue with the ruling, too, writing a report titled “PolitiFact Insist Republicans Don’t Want to End Medicare.” But when I spoke to Adair Thursday afternoon, he was sticking with the decision. Liar, liar—you know the rest.
Both sides have a point—PolitiFact’s being the sharper, in my view—and we will get to that. But more interesting than the details of this mini controversy about a standard-issue political ad are the questions it raises about the PolitiFact method and the use of its Truth-o-meter. The truth, or at least the truthiness, of some matters, seems to lie in degrees that Adair’s innovative six-level gauge may not quite capture.
Not that that means you shouldn’t try.
Let’s take a look at the ad in question.
The ad is one of those ideas that probably worked fine on paper but falls pretty flat on screen. It depicts an elderly man working at a lemonade stand, and then mowing a lawn, and finally showing up at what appears to be a bachelorette party, in a fireman’s outfit, and asking (loudly), “Did someone call the fire department? Because it’s about to get hot in here.” Sheesh.
The ad proclaims, in title cards that come between the costume changes, that “Seniors will have to find $12,500 for health care because Republicans voted to end Medicare.” (Our emphasis.) There is no mention that the plan will never make it through the current Senate, but if you were making the ad you probably wouldn’t mention that either. The idea is to push back against Republican proposals, reframe the debate, scare the elderly, get votes, and so on.
The folks at PolitiFact went through their usual drill for the ad and issued it their strongest scolding. After a line editor and two other editors met to discuss the piece—forming what Adair calls a “Truth-o-Meter panel”—PolitiFact concluded glibly: “The ad’s aged firefighter says, ‘Did someone call the fire department? Because it’s about to get HOT in here!’ We agree. Pants on Fire!”
From the PolitiFact verdict:
Democrats, including Obama, have said the plan would end Medicare “as we know it,” a critical qualifier. But the 30-second ad from the DCCC makes a sweeping claim without that important qualifier.
Another problem with the ad is that it claims that participants would have to find $12,500 to pay for Medicare. That number is based on statistics compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The ad doesn’t mention, though, that the number includes money that would go to Medicare in any case. The CBO estimates beneficiaries would contribute about $6,150 in premiums in 2022 if the program isn’t changed at all. So the extra money seniors need to pay under the Republican proposal is more like $6,350.
These are important points, as is the overall one that PolitiFact makes: that despite dramatic changes to Medicare—notably, the government would subsidize private plans rather than pay doctors and hospitals set fees for care—Medicare would still exist in name and in some form. It just would not be Medicare “as we know it.” Equally important, the vote was essentially symbolic, so any fear of mowing the lawn or life as a Chippendale should be put in a drawer until something more concretely threatening happens in Congress.
Politifact, always generous to the right wing bullies,
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/politifact_shows_a_fox_host_is.php
saving the haymakers for the hippies who want to preserve medicare.
Yeah. sure the republican plan doesn't END medicare, it only ENDS medicare as a provider of coverage and institutes a voucher system instead. A voucher system that doesn't rise with the cost of medical inflation (which the republicans do nothing to rein in). Their plan, which the republicans would happily put in place if they could convince the electorate that they aren't trying to attack new deal programs and entitlements and that it's the democrats who are trying to cut medicare:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/20/60-plus-association/medicare-cuts-health-care-law-will-hurt-seniors-sa/
(thanks politicrap) wouldn't end medicare, it would just convert medicare into "medicare advantage" without a public option and then offload the growing costs of medical coverage onto seniors who are about to face cuts in their social security and increases in ages of eligibility again IF the republicans get their way.
So the republicans wouldn't be FORCING people to work, because the elderly always have the option of starving and dying.
And that's why politijunk calls the democrats a bunch of liars with their pants on fiars because you shouldn't mess around with words like FORCE and END in a political ad. You should be more nuanced, like the truth-o-meter's barely true republicans.
What a joke.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 21 Apr 2011 at 10:51 PM
Remember Bill Clinton triangulated with the GOP and "ended welfare as we know it?"
I wonder how much of "welfare" of ANY kind is left, now, almost 20 years since Clinton "ended welfare as we know it."
So it seems to me that it is not dishonest (certainly no more so than Kyl's glib mendacity, or the latest knee-slapper from Jefferson Davis Dixie-by-Gawd Sessions.
#2 Posted by Woody, CJR on Thu 21 Apr 2011 at 11:31 PM
I find your work to be balanced and fair. I use this site regularly to vet information to share with my friends and family. I am an independent (leaning left), but, with mass media not calling out these false or true statements the political arena gets very confusing and deceiving. Keep up the good work. I will always remain a fan of the truth.
#3 Posted by Linda Schaefer, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 10:37 AM
Your article says that it will only add $6,000 or so to the yearly cost of Republicare. That is $500 per month additional for seniors whose Social Security is about $600 or $700 per month. Politifact is putting lipstick on a pig no matter how you look at it.
#4 Posted by doctortom6, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 10:38 AM
If the Republicans wanted to end Medicare as the ad stated, they could just wait it out. The program is getting close to running on fumes anyway. Look, everyone can see that the program as it exists today is not sustainable unless we have another baby boom starting yesterday to refill the base of the pyramid. Sacrifices are going to have to be made to keep this program solvent. It is folly to pretend that we can have our cake and eat it too. The math just doesn't work.
I think the pants-on-fire label was a good call because not only were the ad's claims false, there were intentionally misleading and used mistruths for fear mongering. To me, false/barely true ratings are better attributed to untrue claims made where the person making them isn't knowingly distorting the facts.
#5 Posted by JohnFx, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 11:01 AM
>> "But PolitiFact’s “Pants on Fire” assessment still feels unduly harsh for some reason. What makes this, for instance, not simply “False”? Or, given that it is a missing phrase away from seeming quite reasonable, “barely true?”"
Yes, spot on. Like many liberals, I believe that "the Republicans voted to end Medicare" is a true statement in the case of this ad. Were I the DCCC, I'd be proud to defend it. But, because of the nuance of the phrasing in a short commercial, I do not have a problem with calling the DCCC's ad a bit misleading.
However, for Politifact to issue a "Pants on Fire" ruling in this circumstance is extraordinarily biased. It's an obvious kowtow to the GOP, and Poltifact itself deserves a "Pants on Fire" if it's going to be issuing these kinds of rulings and not back down when confronted with constructive, substantiated criticism.
Earlier this year, I sent Poltifact a criticism on this "TRUE" ruling (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/08/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-tells-obama-he-also-asked-bush-about-/), which at the very best was actually a "Mostly True." The bottom line is that Politifact needs to be extremely cautious in using either end of the scale -- True or Pants on Fire -- when there is enough nuance to make the issue not purely black and white.
#6 Posted by JayInAtlanta, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 11:18 AM
"like all news organizations, PolitiFact is open about corrections"?
I've spent the last two years working on this issue and it's just shocking to me that anyone at Columbia Journalism Review could write such a sentence with a straight face.
Our experience at MediaBugs is that most news organizations believe they do just fine with corrections, but in fact many don't act to correct even obvious errors unless they are repeatedly prodded. Many don't bother to post proper corrections notices or indicate with any degree of "openness" what or whether something has been corrected. And a shockingly high number don't even bother to post correction policies.
http://mediabugs.org/pages/the-wrong-stuff
Um, perhaps a correction is in order?
#7 Posted by Scott Rosenberg, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 01:33 PM
What bothers me most is Adair isn't even uncomfortable with his determination.
The statement is clearly true by some peoples definition and clearly false by others, all of whom seem reasonable. So moving from false to "pants on fire" and being fully comfortable with it is a person who has some serious bias issues and the least desirable person to run an operation such as Politifact unless the intent is to get biased answers.
#8 Posted by Stephen Lepp, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 01:51 PM
What a dazzling display of bamboozlement.
You write: "If the Ryan plan that was voted through by Republicans were to become law, then Medicare as we currently recognize it would eventually cease to exist."
End.
Of.
Story.
No amount of tap-dancing by you or Politifact changes thus one thing. QED, the ad is true. House Republicans did, in fact, vote to end Medicare.
#9 Posted by Jack Thomas, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 01:55 PM
"And like all news organizations, PolitiFact is open about corrections..."
As someone who's given up after a half dozen attempts to point out simple factual errors to the Washington Post (usually in the form of a simple arithmetic error that wouldn't change the gist of a piece), I disagree. This isn't to pick on the Post, because it's a constant failure in my experience.
#10 Posted by Zach, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 01:59 PM
Medicare is a single-payer health insurer. The Ryan budget, for which House Republicans voted, would end that insurer.
It would then start giving people vouchers with which they could buy private insurance. Those vouchers would increase in value MORE SLOWLY than insurance premiums rise.
That's completely different. If you say it's the same, YOUR pants are on fire.
Under the GOP plan, I will get a miniscule subsidy for insurance at retirement (I'm 30). I mean, by then it'll cover around 1/4 the cost.
#11 Posted by Miles, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:01 PM
To say that you cannot attack an opponent for supporting a bill has no chance of passing turns every law of rational discourse on its head. Usually, a Congressperson casts difficult votes when it's absolutely necessary for passage. In this case, every member of the Republican caucus chose to make a clear, bold statement.
These are symbolic votes that express the party's goal. Why should they be off limits, especially since they won unanimous support? And since when do we not attack politicians for symbolically freighted but otherwise meaningless votes? Have you been living on Mars since, say, the Louisiana Purchase?
#12 Posted by Logan, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:05 PM
What nonsense. The Republicans voted to abolish single payer health care for seniors. That program is called Medicare. They also voted to create an alternate inadequate voucher program and give it Medicare's name. They voted to do it regardless of whether it has a chance this year of getting all the way through the process. Many stupid Republican ideas take multiple iterations before they become law. This is the first shot, not the last one.
#13 Posted by Dan, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:06 PM
Mark me with the huge majority of other commenters here: The "pants on fire" designation was way too strong, and CJR's coverage of this seems too credulous by half. More importantly, though, was the condescending and dismissive follow-up response Politifact posted (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/apr/21/medicare-dccc-republican-ad/) that declined to explain why the site was sticking with its call and instead seemed to make its major point being to blame commenters for a "wild" variety of "mixed metaphors," as though it were up to individual commenters to get together to form a single, best metaphor for where Politifact failed to find fault.
Terrible response. And I think that might have been an even better area for CJR to look at: Why such a lackluster, even intransigent, reply? Why would Politifact post such a snarky reply to such sincere comments?
#14 Posted by Marc Levy, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:21 PM
Rather, they voted—in the lower house—for a plan that would change Medicare, were it to reach the president’s desk and be signed into law. Which it won’t.
I fail to see how the bolded qualifiers are in any way relevant. Just because the bill won't become law doesn't mean that the Republicans didn't vote for it. If I vote for a bill that would change Medicare drastically, then I've voted to change Medicare drastically, whether or not the bill becomes law. That's what "voted to" means.
Nor does this make the vote "essentially symbolic." The vote is part of a process that would make the bill law, if it were passed by the Senate and signed by the President; and the reason it won't be passed by the Senate and signed by the President is that the Senate majority and President aren't Republicans. This isn't like one of the many symbolic bills that wouldn't have an effect even if it became law; if it became law it would have major effects. Again, just because the Democrats won't accept the Republicans' vote doesn't mean that the Republicans didn't vote to change Medicare.
We can have a legitimate dispute over whether the Republicans voted to end Medicare (I think they did), but there's no reason to qualify the assertion that they "voted to" change Medicare drastically. That's true on any reasonable meaning of the words.
#15 Posted by matt w, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:22 PM
The Republican plan isn't Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer government-run health insurance program. The Ryan plan is a voucher system for buying insurance on the open market from potentially unregulated private insurers. Calling this Medicare doesn't make it Medicare.
#16 Posted by larryg, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:33 PM
To follow up, according to Steve Benen, 60 Plus is running ads that say things like the following:
"The House passed a budget that protects and preserves Medicare for years to come. And our congressman, Paul Gosar, voted to protect Medicare and keep it secure for future retirees." (emphasis added)
Obviously we can dispute whether the plan Gosar voted for does protect Medicare; but will you really dispute that the problem lies with saying that he "voted to" do whatever it is that the bill would do, if it became law?
#17 Posted by matt w, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:33 PM
According to this logic, Republicans didn't vote to repeal the health care law and and Democrats didn't vote for cap-and-trade because neither of those got through the Senate and was signed by the President. That is just idiotic.
If you vote to convert a program into an entirely different system - like say, converting a single payer health care program into a voucher system of private insurance - then the prior program has ended. Period.
#18 Posted by Sam, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:34 PM
So, cap and trade was passed by the House, but didn't pass the Senate.
The GOP ran attack ads against House Dems in coal states for voting on cap and trade.
So, did Politifact and CJR say that those ads were lies?
#19 Posted by Miles, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:38 PM
For over a generation, the "conservative movement" has been vowing to end Medicare and the rest of the Great Society. When they finally get their shot, 45 years later, they know that politically it is untenable to kill Medicare, so they trot out the voucher/healthcare savings accounts that have been around since Goldwater, and call these programs "Medicare."
The House GOP voted and approved this. (The ad just says they voted.)
And the kids at Politifact and CJR are too young to know that "killing" government PROVIDED programs has been the language used until Frank Luntz convinced the GOP that they should soft sell it.
What if St. Pete Times fired all it's staffers, kicked them out of their offices, farmed out all the work to freelancers working on a per word basis with no editorial guidance (because editors would just "interfere" and "consumers know best"), and then published the unrefined results under the same banner.
Would it still be the St. Petersburg Times? Or would saying that management killed the paper be "pants on fire?"
Politifact's and CJR's analysis are not false, but they sure as heck miss the point.
#20 Posted by Greg Roach, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:39 PM
Kudos to Mr. Adair and Mr. Meares! I now realize that sinking didn't actually put an end to the Titanic, it just put an end to the Titanic as we know it.
http://thejetpacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/titanic-on-the-ocean-floor1.jpg
#21 Posted by Newton Whale, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:39 PM
Jack Thomas hits the nail on the head in his comment above. It certainly raises the question in my mind, "Are you people paid to be stupid?" Given the amount of Murdoch and Koch cash floating around for just that sort of thing (I'm sure plenty of it under the table), I think that's a fair question for both you and the Politicrap crew.
And to think that mouth-breather Rago won a Pulitzer! It's looking more and more like the inmates are running the asylum these days.
#22 Posted by BillinChicago, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:41 PM
I'm awestruck by the depths to which some media outlets will sink to appease conservatives.
First, you never responded to Beutler's assertion that "[i]f Democrats proposed to turn Medicare into a system that only provided free veterinary services to seniors, would Republicans be lying to say Dems wanted to ‘end Medicare,’ without including the caveat ‘as we know it’? Of course not.” He's exactly right - in such a circumstance, anyone would be justified in saying that Dems voted to "end Medicare."
And second, since when is the validity of the assertion in the ad (i.e. that Republicans voted to end Medicare) dependent upon the bill's chances of becoming law? The ad didn't say that Republicans ended Medicare, which would have been deliberately misleading, it said that they voted to do so, which is true notwithstanding yours and Politifact's insistence that they include the non-sensical caveat "as we know it."
#23 Posted by Scott, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:42 PM
Matt w is precisely correct. Stating that the Republicans didn't _really_ vote to end Medicare is sophistry at best, dishonest at worst. Whether the bill ultimately becomes law is irrelevant to your analysis. The Republicans obviously voted _for_ something, and the contents of that bill are that something. Whatever other symbolic meaning or political strategy their votes might have had, their votes supported a very specific policy proposition.
The only question remaining is "what is Medicare?" To assert that the program that the Republicans wish to subsititute for Medicare is a continuation of the previous single payer benefits program is not a nuanced interpretation, it is wrong. It would be nice if the Republicans gave their own proposed program a different name for clarity's sake. Why is that?
#24 Posted by Tom H., CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:44 PM
What a complete and utter joke. The GOP voted to take a single-payer government funded insurance program for seniors and replace it with a private voucher-based system that does not guarantee coverage. That is destroying Medicare. Whether or not the bill would have passed is irrelevant. I expect this sort of tripe from Fox News, not the CJR.
#25 Posted by Cameron, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:44 PM
I could perhaps forgive the Pants On Fire ruling if the explanatory article were more clear about the facts. But you have to read between the lines of that article to learn that Ryan's plan would make "Medicare" OPTIONAL, and effectively take it AWAY from future seniors who can't afford the approximately $12,000 annual premium. That's by far the most important feature of the plan, and Politifact brushed it under the rug. So I rate their explanatory article "Half True" at best.
#26 Posted by Dan Schroeder, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:49 PM
Wow, no wonder Republicans lie with such impunity. In America today, once you reach 65 your medical expenses are taken care of by medicare. The Republicans voted to end that and instead to write you a check to cover part of your expenses in buying private insurance which in no way guarantees you medical care the way Medicare does. They voted to end medicare. Period. The fact that CJR and Politifact now label simple, fair, honest descriptions of policy Republicans voted far as out and out "pants on fire" lies is truly disheartening. I will remember American values fondly, for they are no longer on display.
#27 Posted by Bruce M. Smith, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:51 PM
Are you saying that it is never proper to say someone "voted for x" unless x actually is enacted into law? Is English your first language, Joel?
#28 Posted by Glenn, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:53 PM
One more thing:
Suppose that a Democratic-controlled House voted to restrict gun ownership to cap-guns, outlawing the sale or possession of all other types of firearms. Suppose that the Senate and White House are Republican (and don't forget the Constitutional problems that would prevent such a bill, were to become law, from ever being enforced).
Raise your hand if you think Republicans would run nationwide ads attacking Democrats for voting to take away everyone's Second Amendment rights, ignoring the fact that the Second Amendment wasn't repealed.
Raise your other hand if you think Politifact would give those ads a "pants on fire" rating and CJR would run an article defending Politifact's assessment.
#29 Posted by Scott, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:58 PM
To my MediaBugs colleague Scott Rosenberg's comment above, regarding this article's misguided statement that "PolitiFact is open about corrections" -- a quick survey of the site shows that Politifact.com has no corrections policy or content of any kind. If it's true, as the article says, that Politifact "has even changed its mind on occasion and switched a Truth-o-Meter decision," good luck finding it. There is no corrections link or page, and if you look for "correction(s)" using Politifact.com's site search function, you find nothing. Ditto, using Google.
What you do find with that Google search is at least one recent item suggesting Politifact has failed to correct an error it made:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/02/update-and-correction-to-politifactcom.html
#30 Posted by Mark Follman, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 02:59 PM
Without the truth-o-meter symbols, Politifact would not communicate as well as it does Whatever else you want to say about the symbols, they draw attention as words would not. Besides, there are always words which explain how they decided to use the symbol, and we can judge from there.
And as you say, they have corrected their errors.
#31 Posted by JAB, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:00 PM
> Scott Rosenberg
Your point is taken. I meant to type "all news organizations SHOULD," but stupidly left the word out. Been struck through now and sentence changed to reflect that "responsible" news organizations are open about corrections. Readers should take a look at your survey—which has some pretty arresting findings—to sort the responsible from the irresponsible.
#32 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:08 PM
By the logic of some, Medicare Advantage isn't Medicare. And when Democrats enacted Obamacare and effectively ended Medicare Advantage, they ended Medicare.
I don't think we should take these people seriously, which, unfortunately, this article does.
#33 Posted by Thomas, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:10 PM
Politifact continues to discredit itself and its Pulitzer Prize by engaging in overt, blatant bias against Democrats and its kid-glove handling of conservatives. Indeed, Politifact doesn't even bother to take up the most egregious of Republican lies.
It's a shame, too, because the St. Petersburg staff often performs some very good, in-depth research on a variety of political issues of the day. But Mr. Adair often ignores the research in favor of snarky nit-picking, false equivalence, and inequitable rating.
And they comments above about the refusal of Politifact to correct their errors of fact. In fact, they outright refuse to correct errors of fact. they have no corrections page, no way for requests for corrections to get through their high wall of arrogance, and indeed people who request corrections of errors of fact are sneeringly dismissed.
Politifact is no longer an arbiter of "truth" but have made themselves partisan warriors in the toxic political discourse. I wish it weren't so.
#34 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:18 PM
I really do not see how replacing a public system that guarantees coverage with vouchers to join a private system that does not guarantee coverage, and dramatically shifts costs from the government to the citizen, does not constitute ending the public system.
If Congress voted to replace the U.S. military with vouchers for citizens to purchase protection from mercenaries, it would be accurate to say they ended the military.
#35 Posted by the_dan, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:21 PM
One more thing, echoing commenter Marc Levy above.
Beyond whether Politfact is "open about corrections" (which merits a "pants on fire" in the real world), is their breathtaking condescension on display right now regarding reader reaction to their sophistry.
Their follow-up story reveals that many readers disagreed with their silliness, then goes on to poke fun at all those helpful readers who supplied analogous situations to reveal the deep flaws in Politifact's "logic." ("Logic" that, alas, CJR has swallowed as well.)
Never once, does Politifact acknowledge that these readers are, in fact, correct. Never once do they even hint that these reactions have elicited the slightest second thought to their assessment.
Much easier to make fun of people than deal with your own error.
#36 Posted by Jack Thomas, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:22 PM
Guys, I depend on you to be honest and fair, no matter if it is the republicans or democrats lying. Dont worry about those who complain about your ruling, because you got my thanks!
Sincerly,
Douglas (a liberal and democrat)
#37 Posted by Douglas, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:40 PM
So, I still do not get what is untrue about saying that the Republicans "voted to end medicare."
That's TRUE. They voted to end Medicare. Whether they will be successful in that vote is kind of the whole point of the ad. The ad is trying to say that the Republicans should not be given the opportunity to finally end it by giving them both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
The idiotic excuse that "well, it was largely a symbolic vote" doesn't cut it. It's an important policy statement on the GOP's part that is going to be a major subject of debate in the upcoming election campaign. It is absolutely fair to say that they voted to "end Medicare,' because that's what they did.
If your spouse dies, or you get divorced and remarried -- and you try and tell your kids that your marriage to their mother didn't "end" it only "changed" they are going think you're nuts.
#38 Posted by Hesiod, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:41 PM
More idiotic Politifact logic:
Dem Ad: "The crazy GOP claims that Dinosaurs are not extinct!"
Politifact: "Pants on Fire! Dinosaurs evolved or "changed" into birds. Birds are not extinct. Therefore, the GOP claim that Dinosaurs are not extinct is TRUE, and the Democratic ad is PANTS ON FIRE false. The Democrats would have been better off, saying that Dinosaurs -- as we know them (An "important distinction")-- no longer walk the Earth."
#39 Posted by Hesiod, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:48 PM
My suggestion to Politifact is this. If the statements made in an ad are technically true, but leave out important context -- the WORST rating you should be giving the ad is "half true."
Case in point.
The pro Kloppenberg ads that ran in Wisconsin ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY relaying information about prosser failing to prosecute a catholic Priest accused of groping two young boys, and sending a letter to the Bishop advising him of the problem stating that it was to "avoid a scandal." Information that was based on news reports and civil trial documents from the boys civil trial against the catholic diocese of Milwaukee.
Nothing in the ad was false. And it was all documented. Yet, because one of the accusers -- who had been very critical of Prosser in public news stories a few years earlier -- was in a pro Prosser ad criticizing the Kloppenberg and the ad -- Politifiact gave the Kloppenberg ad a "barely true" rating.
Why? They went to great lengths to provide all kinds of extenuating circumstances, and rationalizations for why prosser may not have prosecuted the priest, including the information about the priest being a multiple abuser coming out later in civil suits.
This was a completely BS excuse because, of course, had prosser prosecuted this man he could have discovered other incidences of abuse that only came out later. Politifact showed themselves to be people who play to the crowd instead of to the truth.
#40 Posted by Hesiod, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 03:56 PM
I think TPM shows a better understanding of this issue than you do, Joel. Changing a defined benefit into a voucher program, while keeping the name, isn't really keeping the program. Just the name.
I think people are understandably upset with this plan, and with your (and Politifact's) attempt (however well-intentioned) to minimize the difference between what Medicare is now, and what "Medicare" would be if Republicans got their way.
#41 Posted by ben, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 04:00 PM
In the 1980's the Coca-Cola company tried to do what the GOP is now doing with medicare.
They took an old successful formula and product, changed it significantly, and then tried to market it as the same old product. But, it turned out to be a marketing disaster.
At the time, there were gullible journalists who hailed Coke's masterstroke, or said: "What's the big deal."
We have a lot of dumb people working in journalism.
#42 Posted by Hesiod, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 04:07 PM
Are you planning on posting a follow-up to this ridiculous report apologizing for your silly parsing of words over whether Republicans actually voted to do something? Did they vote? Yes, they did. Would they vote this into law if they also controlled the Senate and the Presidency? Yes, they would. Your saying that they didn't really do something when they clearly did is a huge blow to your credibility in the eyes of a huge portion of your audience. I think you need to address this pretty quickly.
#43 Posted by Sion, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 04:34 PM
Joel, I simply cannot accept that you believe some of what you have written. Several times you suggest it is unfair to hold Republicans for this bill because it is unlikely to become law.
For example here:
Rather, they voted—in the lower house—for a plan that would change Medicare, were it to reach the president’s desk and be signed into law. Which it won’t.
... and here:
"...because Republicans voted to end Medicare.” (Our emphasis.) There is no mention that the plan will never make it through the current Senate..."
This is a truly bizarre standard. Under what democratic process is it unfair to criticize the stated goals of your political opponent? The Republican leadership has done absolutely everything within their power to see these goals accomplished. They crafted a bill and then passed it along strictly partisan lines. If this is not an acceptable topic for political advertising then no ad could ever meet your standard.
#44 Posted by sven, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 04:35 PM
Imagine if a food critic announced that an established restaurant would no longer offer their famous chicken-noodle soup. The next day the restaurant owner ran a full page decrying the critic in the most strident tones. "We still make the same soup, but now it has ham and beans instead of chicken and noodles!!!" Is it the critic or owner who is being misleading?
#45 Posted by sven, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 04:38 PM
"Ending Medicare as we know it" would have been more accurate. This ad is less dishonest that most, which may not be saying very much. It's major contention is true, however. Political spots don't work with a lot of qualifiers and this one depicts with some exaggerations the intent of the Republican legislation- to end a program they have ALWAYS HATED.
#46 Posted by ribbie149, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:05 PM
HEY CJR NICE HE-SAID-SHE-SAID. WAY TO SET THE STANDARD.... IN STENOGRAPHY.
THE ESSENCE OF THE GOP IS THAT THEY CONSTANTLY WASTE TIME AND MONEY WITH "SYMBOLIC" VOTES LIKE THE ONE TO END MEDICARE.... AS WE KNOW IT. THAT IS WHAT THEY TELL THEIR CONSTITUENTS WHILE THEY CUT RIBBONS PROVIDED BY PORK THAT THEY VOTED AGAINST.
JUST TRYING TO SCARE THE OLD FOLKS? YOU MUST BE ON THE COMMITTEE THAT VOTED A PULITZER FOR THE DEATH PANELS DEFENDER AT WSJ.
PEOPLE OVER 65 ARE A LOSING PROPOSITION TO PRIVATE HEALTH INSURERES. A VOUCHER IS WORTHLESS IF NO ONE WILL SELL YOU HEALTH INSURANCE.
BUT ITS STILL CALLED "MEDICARE" SO THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO END IT, THEY JUST VOTE LIKE THEY DO.
#47 Posted by feckless, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:17 PM
CBO's letter analyzing Ryan's plan says this:
"People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries
who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current
Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to
help them purchase private health insurance."
Whatever name is stuck on their proposal, the gop plan represents a huge burden shift to individuals and takes the government guarantee away. This plan strikes at the whole impetus that the real Medicare program began with. The most troubling aspect of these "fact checks" is the casual indifference to what future retirees will face if the gop wins congress and the presidency in 2012. Rather than guaranteed coverage, they will be on their own purchasing insurance with a voucher that will steadily lose its value and buy less and less actual health coverage as medical inflation rapidly diminishes its value. The gop has just passed their latest plan to end Medicare and because they've arranged for a slow death by inflation, and with a delayed implentation in 2022, the media is letting them get away with obscuring what they want to do. For god's sake, quit nit-picking and look at the big picture CJR! Since their prediction of the end of democracy and apple pie if Medicare passed in the sixties, getting rid of this program has been a longstanding project for the gop. But your readers will be left with the impression that the gop only intends to "fix" the program with some good government type reforms.
#48 Posted by tim, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:26 PM
I'm surprised to see that nobody is commenting on a legitimate reason to say that the "vote to end Medicare" line is technically inaccurate, though hardly "Pants On Fire" worthy.
The reason is in the phrase that precedes it: "Seniors WILL have to find $12,500 for health care because Republicans voted to end Medicare." [caps added] By using the word "will", the ad implies that the Republicans' plan has actually passed. which isn't true (thank goodness).
It would have OK had been "Seniors will have to pay IF the Republican plan for Medicare passes" or maybe even "Seniors MAY have to pay because Republicans voted to end Medicare".
#49 Posted by KDW, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:30 PM
I am very happy to see that many others have observed the same problems at PolitiFact as have I. Their facts and analyses are mostly OK (considering that they are only journalists, not logicians or scientists), but their attempts to choose the appropriate rating are frequently oxymoronically comical. I cannot count the times where I went back through the article in an attempt to fathom how their rating had any basis there. Further, in re-reading the articles, I often discover subtle biases hiding in unwarranted modifiers and superlatives that are scattered throughout.
I strongly suspect that the authors of each piece are not allowed to choose the rating at the end, that being left to the editors, who feel free to pick the rank that suits them politically. I have called them to the carpet a couple of times, both times they refused to budge while giving me unrelated non sequitur arguments (i.e., BS).
I think the idea behind PolitiFact is a good one, but it is not being executed well. For it to be taken seriously, they should 1) eliminate the subtle biases in the body of the article, 2) explicitly explain their reasoning behind choosing the rating at the end, and have it pass an independent board for approval before publishing. Also, they need to admit that "True" also means "Not False," "Mostly True" also means "Barely False," "Half True" means "Half False," "Barely True" means "Mostly False," and "False" means "Not True." And "Pants On Fire" should include in its definition that the speaker of the falsehood either knows it is false, should have known it is false, or is in the position to determine that it is false. I would also add one more category at the other end, "Duh!" for those statements that are so obviously true that you would be an idiot to think otherwise.
Perhaps someone should start a PolitiFact Fact Meter (PFF Meter), rating each of their ratings, using their own scale. After receiving a few "Pants On Fire" ratings, maybe PolitiFact would clean up its act.
#50 Posted by farmera, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:32 PM
I vote to stop paying politifacts and the CJR's journalists with money and pay them instead in cow paddies. Of course, they can't complain about their lost paychecks because I've only ended their pay "as you know it." And you can't say I voted that way because my vote doesn't change anything.
Idiots.
#51 Posted by bcw, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:33 PM
This is a very, very poorly reasoned piece. The vote is only symbolic? Is that a joke? The Republicans endorsed ending Medicare; and instead, having seniors dependent on private market insurers with some payment assistance that would not cover the costs of health care. There is really no reason to do contortions to avoid this reality - the debate is between having Medicare or not.
#52 Posted by Bryce, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:35 PM
A quick look at the Politifact home page lists these 2 gems as just False and not Pants-on-fire:
Ronald Renuart:
"Almost 37 percent of the total income from Planned Parenthood is from abortions."
False - As long as you don't count most of Planned Parenthood's income
Jean Schmidt
"For every 33 pregnant women that walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic, 32 receive an abortion."
False - Bad stats make for bad facts
These 2 are laughed off as simply false and due to "bad stats" as if they are not blatant attempts to mislead. How these don't deserve a Pants-on-fire rating, but the DCCC ad does is beyond me.
#53 Posted by Sion, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 05:38 PM
If you are only going to look at the ratings and agree/disagree, then your time is wasted. If you look at the detail behind the ratings where you disagree, you may actually learn something. Whether you maintain your disagreement or change your mind, it is likely to be a function of the facts, rather than just "the horse you rode in on". The point is, both sides stretch the envelope, and they should both be reminded to stick to the facts. They don't need to fear voters who never check the truth of their statements.
#54 Posted by Jon Beachkofski, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 06:28 PM
The time has come, as it does for many organizations, where Politifact must choose it's future. Will it be true to it's convictions or do what it must to survive? Politifact has chosen to cozy up to liars and charlatans, thereby insuring it's survival. All those think tanks that carry water for the party of the oligarch's now have one more soldier to call upon. And theres always enough money for another soldier. Politifact has lost the reality based community for what little that matters to anyone whose convictions are so easily subverted. I hope success is cold comfort to those who choose it over the truth.
#55 Posted by trav, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 06:34 PM
According to your logic, we would never indict someone for attempting and failing a crime. Sure they tried to rob the bank, but they failed, so it didn't happen?
They voted to end Medicare. That this attempt to destroy Medicare will be stopped by Democrats should not acquit them of that act. They should not be excused for trying to end Medicare because Democrats will stop them.
And just because they will call the new voucher program Medicare does not make it so. You can call skunk cabbage a rose and it still stinks.
#56 Posted by Cajsa, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 06:36 PM
The key sentence here is this one: "If the Ryan plan that was voted through by Republicans were to become law, then Medicare as we currently recognize it would eventually cease to exist."
That is EXACTLY what the ad and its scroll state. The only pants-on-fire here are hiding Bill Adair's sensitive crotch.
#57 Posted by Joh ., CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 06:42 PM
CJR misses the point almost as badly as Politifact.
Let's say you're at a restaurant, I'm your waitress, and you and your friend order ham sandwiches. I bring you your ham sandwich, but remove the ham, the mayo, the lettuce and one slice of bread from your friend's sandwich. That I might still choose to call what I've served your friend a ham sandwich (after all, you can still smell the ingredients I've removed if you get your nose close enough), in no way makes it the same thing as what I've served you.
If you remove the guaranteed medical care from Medicare, you can call it Medicare (or you can call it Shirley). It isn't at all the program it was.
You're arguing only that the name remains constant and therefore the program doesn't end. That's sort of the opposite argument about the rose that by any other name, smells as sweet, don't you think?
#58 Posted by Anita, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 07:02 PM
It is absolutely the policy of the Republican party to end Medicare as a single-payer insurance system and convert if to a defined benefit plan. The stated reason is to reduce the US deficit by limiting tax payer's contribution to senior's medical costs. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this change will mean that most seniors will need to spend a substantial portion of their incomes on medical care as a result.
The DCCC's ad suggests, tongue in cheek, some ways in which seniors might make the extra money needed to pay their medical bills. Has the Republican version of Medicare become law? No. Is it likely to become law this year? No. Will it become law if the Republicans achieve their objective of taking control of the WH and Senate next year? We don't know, but the Republicans have been "bold and courageous" in settting their plan down in back and white. Did the DCCC mislead about what's happening? Hmmm. Not so much.
#59 Posted by Mike M, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 07:41 PM
You can't say they "voted to end Medicare" if Medicare won't actually end? I'm completely lost.
Even if they had a bill that was called "The End of Medicare," that actually had as it's stated goal the complete end of Medicare, with no replacement whatsoever - by your preposterous argument you still wouldn't be right to say they "voted to end Medicare" unless Medicare actually, you know, ended.
Thats just idiocy.
You have truly disappointed today. Truly. You are supposed to be better than that.
#60 Posted by Thom Little, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 07:52 PM
To CJR and Politifact: yours is the weakest darned sophistry I've seen since grade school. Just....bizarre. In fact, and in spirit, and in the grand historical, the Republicans have voted to end Medicare, just like they have been saying they would for decades. Jeez, you people ever read a history book?
#61 Posted by Franz, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 08:10 PM
As someone who has worked in health policy and the healthcare system for over 20 hrs, CJR and PolitiFact need to learn how Medicare is currently designed to work. It is clear reading this piece and the PolitiFact piece you don't understand the basic operating premise of the program.
Simply put - Medicare is a single payer health care system for seniors and certain disabled which provides health care services and covers about 80% of the costs. Benefits are uniform regardless of where you live. Medicare was created because private insurers for the most part private insurers weren't providing coverage to people over 65.
Replacing it with a voucher system based on private insurance that will cover 50-60% of costs is not today's Medicare. It may not leave seniors totally uninsured but it is a major reduction in coverage and a major cost shift which many will not be able to afford. Saying Republicans are proposing to end Medicare is basically correct. Any in depth research on how Medicare works and how the proposal changes it would have brought that out. I am saddened that CJR has not done it's home work on how Medicare works today.
.
#62 Posted by John M., CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 09:57 PM
John M. insists on making the same mistake I pointed out above. Medicare Advantage is part of Medicare today, and it isn't a single payer system. The Obamacare law essentially will end Medicare Advantage. John, does that mean that it's accurate to say that Obama ended Medicare, or ended Medicare "as we know it"? How about the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that were in that law, and the plan to ration care using the IPAB? Do those end Medicare?
#63 Posted by Thomasj, CJR on Fri 22 Apr 2011 at 11:10 PM
The fact that the bill won't be passed in the Senate and won't be signed by the President is completely irrelevant. Republicans in the House voted for the bill. Period. If Republicans also controlled the Senate and the presidency, they still would have voted for the bill; they really do want to dismantle Medicare.
#64 Posted by aaron, CJR on Sat 23 Apr 2011 at 12:34 AM
Suppose whoever manages CJR were to decide that next year and forever more CJR would reflect completely the policies of Fox News. Would that be the end of CJR or just the end of CJR as we know it? And what exactly would the difference?
#65 Posted by Gary Bollinger, CJR on Sat 23 Apr 2011 at 12:46 AM
Silly Thomasj, it is not correct to say the "Obamacare law" will end Medicare. It is okay, however, to say it will end Medicare Advantage which is what you did say when you said "The Obamacare law essentially will end Medicare Advantage."
At which point the republicans ran all sorts of ads attacking Democrats for cutting 500 billion from Medicare which politifact categorized as 'true enough for me'.
So, by your own words, it is perfectly fine for democrats to accuse republicans of voting to end medicare because what they voted "ends medicare" and replace it with "medicare advantage".
And if its okay to claim democratic changes to medicare "essentially will end medicare advantage" then it is perfectly fine to claim republican initiatives "essentially will end medicare".
I'm sorry but this is a stupid debate with stupid people and thanks to Joel for putting for shining a favorable light on that inconsistent stupidity.
Stupid
#66 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 23 Apr 2011 at 12:50 AM
The The Truth-O-Meter is based in Florida.
Not one damn thing is out of the reach of corrupion in Florida.
Enough said.
#67 Posted by word without meaning, CJR on Sun 24 Apr 2011 at 12:11 AM
The problem with the CJR analysis is that in fact the republicans DID vote to end Medicare. That they will lose the vote eventually is irrelevant. They deliberately voted to end Medicare. The farce that they substituted is not even close to being Medicare since it would result in any senior with a preexisting condition being denied insurance or any senior who has an expensive disease being dropped on some flimsy pretext. Plus the insurance companies would set premiums for anyone over 65 so high that only the filthy rich could afford them, the government voucher not even coming close.
As Mark Twain once said, "If you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs because calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one."
#68 Posted by Texas Aggie, CJR on Sun 24 Apr 2011 at 01:46 AM
The clearest refutation that can be given to both the Politifact rating and more importantly to the Republican proposal was given by Lawrence O'Donnell: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42725647#42725647
I encourage you to listen/watch it. The Republican plan does not "change" or "protect" Medicare; it "REPEALS" and replaces the program.
Politifact did no one, including itself, any favors in going overboard in its rating of the Democrats hyperbolic ad.
#69 Posted by Antonio, CJR on Sun 24 Apr 2011 at 09:51 AM
"There is no mention that the plan will never make it through the current Senate"
Hence, any political statement that does not mention that an opponent's position has no prospect of being enacted in the near term, at least not until they control more of the government, is at some level dishonest. You realize how utterly ridiculous this is, right? I mean, you are writing for CJR.
Long before this most recent controversy broke out I visited PolitiFact on a few occasions and was immediately struck by the shoddy reasoning and incoherent grading system, irrespective of my own political leanings. How anybody can give credence to an organization that uses the designation "pants on fire" while purporting to give reasoned and dispassionate analysis is beyond me. We'd be better off with no corrective to political ads than having a fact-checker that pretends a level of expertise while writing at a level that even third graders would find embarrassing.
#70 Posted by Steve S., CJR on Sun 24 Apr 2011 at 01:19 PM
To his credit, Mr. Meares did write that he thought the final rating "Pants on Fire" was unwarranted and excessive, and criticized Politifact on those grounds.
As I understand it, Mr. Meares is Australian, and thus probably doesn't have a good understanding of Medicare (the American single payer program for people 65+). Australia itself has a Medicare program -- also a single payer program -- that is much different than the American program.
So he got bamboozled by Politifact's -- and Adair's -- parsing of the "as we know it" flimflammery; he should have discussed it with Trudy Lieberman or another expert before defending this obvious distortion by Politifact.
But I request an acknowledgement from Mr. Meares he was just wrong in his assertion that the Republicans didn't *really* vote because the bill had no chance of becoming law. It was a terrible lapse in judgement and logic and we all expect much better of CJR journalists. A correction or clarification is in order, as well as a more critical assessment of a fellow journalist's claims.
I also challenge him to demonstrate his assertion that "PolitiFact is open about corrections." In fact, Politifact is NOT open about corrections. On a number of occasions Politifact has obstinately refused to correct obvious errors of fact in their pieces against Democrats and liberals. Here is one example, and here is another.
So Joel Meares got bamboozled by Politifact, which discredits its Pulitzer Prize as it has capitulated to the rightwing bullies instead of standing up and declaring the truth: One side of the political spectrum lies, and egregiously lies, far more often than the other side.
You gotta admit, the right has effectively made obedient puppy-dogs of the mainstream press with their decades-long attack on journalism with specious claims of "liberal bias."
#71 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 24 Apr 2011 at 02:14 PM
One of the main focuses of the CJR article is that the bill will not pass and so some how that makes the ad false. Ridiculous! The Republican lead congress voted to end Medicare as we know it. Perhaps leaving out the tagline as we know it is misleading. But to suggest that the ad isn't true because the Democrats will not allow the bill to become law is irony in its highest form.
#72 Posted by Cainmi, CJR on Sun 24 Apr 2011 at 07:27 PM
@ MediaBugs Scott Rosenberg and Mark Follman
You're half right. PolitiFact does have a corrections policy. They just don't follow it particularly well:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/21/principles-truth-o-meter/
(look near the bottom for the corrections policy)
#73 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 03:22 AM
@ James, who wrote:
"I request an acknowledgement from Mr. Meares he was just wrong in his assertion that the Republicans didn't *really* vote because the bill had no chance of becoming law. It was a terrible lapse in judgement and logic and we all expect much better of CJR journalists. A correction or clarification is in order, as well as a more critical assessment of a fellow journalist's claims."
The vote was a concurrent resolution. That means that it concerns only Congress. It can't go to the president's desk and it can't become law. Not unless it is voted on as a different type of bill. There's a whole pack of you who seem to be misled on this point. Didn't the ad in question explain that to you adequately?
#74 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 03:29 AM
What on earth were those crazy Democrats thinking anyway? What bizarre inferential leap could have led them to the ridiculous conclusion that Republicans were the least bit interested in ending Medicare as we know it? Any fool who has real the recent articles at Think Progress, "Rick Santorum: I Would ‘Absolutely’ Let The Country Default Over Defunding The Health Care Law" and "Report: The 46 Year-Long Republican War On Medicare" will understand that Politifacts and CJR on both spot on in their deconstruction of obvious liberal spin and destructive accusations against the principled stand Republicans have taken on both health care and fiscal responsibility.
#75 Posted by Gary Boatwright, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 06:29 AM
An utterly irrelevant distinction for the purposes of Joel's post, in which he defended Politifact's assertion that the ad was an outright lie because it didn't mention that "the plan will never make it through the current Senate" and "...they voted—in the lower house—for a plan that would change Medicare, were it to reach the president’s desk and be signed into law. Which it won’t."
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a concurrent resolution, Mr. White. One of the major purposes of a concurrent resolution in the House is setting the Congressional budget process into motion. It's not a trivial vote. I suggest you study David Waldman's Congress Matters every day to educate yourself on the intricacies of the legislative process.
Congress Matters
#76 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 06:56 AM
@ James, who wrote:
"You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a concurrent resolution, Mr. White."
Based on what? Be specific.
You say it sets the Congressional budget process in motion. Does that conflict with anything I wrote?
You say it's not a trivial vote. Does that conflict with anything I wrote?
Then you say I should study to learn about the intricacies of the legislative process. Unless you can give some decent answers to my two questions, it's going to look like you dodged my point in favor of engaging in a fallacious personal attack.
#77 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 12:59 PM
You implied that the vote was trivial and "only concerns Congress" which is utterly preposterous. I pointed out that it is the first step that the House uses to set the entire budget process in motion. Ergo, it "concerns" everyone, not just people in Congress. You accused a "whole pack" of knowledgeable, educated people of being misled, which is not true at all. You are evidently the one who is misled, hence I recommended a good website that you might want to use to educate yourself. Sorry if you took offense.
#78 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 01:47 PM
@ Bryan White - Thanks for the info on Politifact's corrections policy, which indeed is quite difficult to find! (As are any correx they may have posted.) We'll send out a correction of our own on Twitter, where we noted this piece and comments discussion on Friday.
#79 Posted by Mark Follman, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 01:57 PM
@James and all.
I am glad to see this post has sparked debate and don't mind my role as punching bag in the service of examining the veracity of the ad and the usefulness of PolitiFact's "Truth-o-meter."
James, as to your request for correction or clarification on the point I made, in agreement with the PolitiFact assessment, that the Republicans didn't *really* vote to end Medicare because it had no chance of going beyond the house, I can see where you're coming from. Yes, you could argue that they did "vote to end Medicare" because a vote took place on the Ryan plan and it was passed. Getting past the disagreement about whether it was a vote to end Medicare or to end Medicare "as we know it," a vote did take place.
Two things I would add, though. First, the ad states "Republicans voted to end Medicare" bluntly, without any of the kinds of clarifications that have come up in my post or the various comments disagreeing with it. The declarative nature of that statement, to the casual ad viewer, I believe, implies that the Republicans have voted to end Medicare, the vote being the cause of the result (the end of Medicare). I think that is misleading. As I said, perhaps not "Pants on Fire" misleading, but not clear and fully truthful. Secondly, the phrase is part of the fuller sentence, "Seniors will have to find $12,500 for health care because Republicans voted to end health care." Which, from my understanding, is not true, both in terms of the figure and the assertion that this is something that now "will" happen. Because though there was a vote, trivial or not, it did not make the Ryan Plan law.
It seems a lot of the discussion here is about semantics—which, to be fair, was also an element of the PolitiFact assessment ("as we know it"). And I think what the debate highlights is the difficulty in assessing truth as graded on a scale like the Truth-o-meter's, itself a semantic device in some ways (what's the diff between a "False" and "Pants on Fire" and who decides etc). You ultimately get a more rigorous assessment of the ad by reading the text of PolitiFact's ruling, this post, these comments and the posts elsewhere that have spawned from it, than a Truth-o-meter label.
And James, yes, I am Australian where we are lucky enough to have a great system and where I am covered by Medicare. I concede that on the details of the U.S. system I am probably fuzzier than you and that consulting Trudy, a fine journalist with whom I'm privileged to work, is always a good idea. But the question here feels less about the intricacies than about whether this ad plainly misleads. And I felt it did. To what extent it did is a tough one to pin down.
#80 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 02:37 PM
"You implied that the vote was trivial and "only concerns Congress" which is utterly preposterous."
It concerns Congress in exactly the sense you yourself mentioned (it sets the congressional budget process in motion). It's an error to use your poor interpretation of what I wrote to deduce that I am making a mistake. Congress is responsible for the congressional budget process. I'm exactly right.
"I pointed out that it is the first step that the House uses to set the entire budget process in motion. Ergo, it "concerns" everyone, not just people in Congress."
That's a fallacy of equivocation. You admit I'm right when you concede that the CR is an measure with its directly implications entirely internal to Congress and its subsequent (binding) spending measures.
"You accused a "whole pack" of knowledgeable, educated people of being misled, which is not true at all."
I've got far better evidence for my statement than you do for yours. There are many critics of CJR and PolitiFact who seem to think that his budget might get signed by the president. And that's what's preposterous.
Examples:
***The vote is part of a process that would make the bill law, if it were passed by the Senate and signed by the President; and the reason it won't be passed by the Senate and signed by the President is that the Senate majority and President aren't Republicans.***
***According to this logic, Republicans didn't vote to repeal the health care law and and Democrats didn't vote for cap-and-trade because neither of those got through the Senate and was signed by the President.***
(cap and trade was a binding bill and eligible to reach the president's desk after moving through the legislative process)
***The fact that the bill won't be passed in the Senate and won't be signed by the President is completely irrelevant.***
That fact that the bill is non-binding was regularly glossed over and implicitly dismissed as irrelevant without supporting argument.
James continued:
"You are evidently the one who is misled, hence I recommended a good website that you might want to use to educate yourself. Sorry if you took offense."
No need to apologize. I take no offense. I simply point out that you have no grounds for your assertions, which helps explain why you need to engage in the personal attack. It's fine with me if you keep doing it. I'll make sure it hurts you worse than it hurts me.
#81 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 02:55 PM
Americans are aware of the basic structure of our government and the basic process by which a bill becomes law. We know we have a bicameral legislature. We’ve heard of the Presidential veto, and know that when the House votes to do something, that doesn’t by itself mean it will happen.
Virtually every day, we read news accounts that report that “the House voted to do x.” We know what that means. It’s a standard formulation of US political journalism, and nobody claims it’s misleading, or causes the public to imagine that House-passed measures automatically become law. We evaluate our Members of Congress on the basis of what they pass, even though what they pass doesn’t automatically become law. If Meares wants to indict the routine formulations of reporting on Congress, good luck. But don’t single out a single ad, just because it conforms to the conventions everybody else understands and observes. This is silly.
#82 Posted by Jad Bernardo, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 02:57 PM
Jad Bernardo wrote:
"We’ve heard of the Presidential veto, and know that when the House votes to do something, that doesn’t by itself mean it will happen."
James assures me that you're likewise aware that some bills passed by Congress never become law simply because of the type of bill, not because the bill is not passed by the Senate and subsequently signed by the president.
Let's hope he's right.
#83 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 03:06 PM
Excellent response, Mr. Meares.
#84 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 03:23 PM
Politifact is saying that if I take away my Grandmother's cat named "Boots" kill it and then give her a rat named "Boots" i didn't kill her cat.
Gad, what passes for "journalism" today.
#85 Posted by Grumpy Demo, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 03:35 PM
Bryan, yes, I get it. I worked on the Hill for 15 years. I get it. You're grasping at straws.
#86 Posted by Jad Bernardo, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 04:28 PM
Jad Bernardo wrote:
"You're grasping at straws."
Would you say that your method of expressing the legislative process was free of ambiguity? That it lent itself to the interpretation that the non-binding budget bill passed by the House was, in fact, binding?
If you're going to accuse me of grasping at straws, it will behoove you to support your argument with evidence.
#87 Posted by Bryan White, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 05:07 PM
Definition of vote: A formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands.
The caveats you and Politifact add to insist it was not a vote are deceptive and fraudulent.
Wiki entry for Medicare: a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. Medicare operates similarly to a single-payer health care system.
The substitution of a voucher system to buy private insurance is not the same program and the only deception is giving it the same name as Medicare.
Who polices the self appointed guardians of truth when they insert caveats and qualifiers to avoid the plain meaning of words.
#88 Posted by Mike M, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 05:34 PM
@Joel,
Thanks for responding to the issues raised here in the comments. It is much appreciated.
I think you make some good points, but then, if you want to set these kinds of standards for qualifications and caveats on every statement, then the same standard should be applied to both sides, which it is not. For example, a recent Politifact "fact-check" I brought up, and @Ryan adjudicated, was Paul Ryan's claim that "The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy." I mean, that's an overblown statement, yet Politifact rates that a full "True." No caveats demanded of Paul Ryan, even though his statement is FAR more overblown and misleading than "The Republicans voted to end Medicare." In fact, the Republicans DID vote to end Medicare (as we know it), but the debt WILL NOT "soon eclipse the entire economy." Booga booga!
I mean, if we are going to require caveats and qualifications on the one side, to be fair we should require caveats and qualifications on everyone, no?
You think that the ad is misleading -- NOT an outright lie, as you admit -- and there is plenty of room for debate, as evidenced here and throughout the blogosphere this past weekend. That's fine, that everyone has an opinion, and there has been a vigorous discussion. Healthy debate. But that just illustrates how far off base Politifact was with their rating. Thank you for acknowledging that.
#89 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 07:08 PM
Washington whining about tone:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/029132.php
and why it's a one directional rule in the playground:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/history-political-lying
#90 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Apr 2011 at 03:51 AM