So who's going to fact-check PolitiFact?
December 21, 2009 1:16 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Because the org clearly misfired when it came to Karl Rove's defense and essentially backed his claim that Obama currently had "the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year." Rove wrote that in his recent WSJ column and I immediately flagged it as being false and highlighted how Ronald Reagan's approval ratings at the end of his first year were identical to Obama's.
Rove's definitive claim (i.e. "the worst ratings") is not true. Yet PolitiFact took up the issue and announced Rove's suggestion was "mostly true," even though PolitiFact confirmed my point about Regan's approval ratings.
This analysis is just embarrassing, especially coming from a fact-checking site that's supposed to offer clarity [emphasis added]:
Still, if you're making the comparison -- and political observers have been doing precisely these sorts of comparisons for years -- Rove's statement holds up fairly well. Yes, Rove spoke too loosely when he said that Obama's numbers were the worst of any president's, and he failed to mention equally bad ratings for Reagan, a conservative icon whose politics were more in tune with Rove's than Obama. But with the exception of Reagan, every other elected president had clearly higher approval ratings at this point in his tenure than Obama has. So we rate Rove's statement Mostly True.
You follow? Rove stated unequivocally that Obama's approval ratings were the worst for any president at the end of his first term. But that's false. Period. So what conclusion did PolitiFact come to? It determined that Rove's assertion was "mostly true" and "holds up fairly well."
Except, y'know, for the fact that it's not accurate.
The larger point is that Rove could have used more ambiguous language and suggested Obama's year-end ratings were "among" the lowest for president. That would have been accurate. But Rove clearly wanted to make a splash; he wanted to make a definitive OMG-type of statement about Obama's ratings. (Indeed, the WSJ used the "worst ratings" ever line as the column's pull quote.) Rove wanted to start an anti-Obama meme with his worst-ever claim. And among his obedient followers, Rove has.
Rove chose to use definitive, attention-grabbing language with his worst-ever claim. And the language was false. So why did PolitiFact give Rove a pass?
UPDATED: Rove's swipe only worked if he played dumb about Reagan's polling numbers. There's just no way Rove would have ever written, "Along with Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year."
In order to slam Obama, Rove had to lie about previous polling numbers. And PolitiFact thinks that's fine.


















Reading into his words a little too much here, MMFA.. I say ya let this one go.
It wasn't. It was false.
Compare this to what Obama said last week about job creation. Obama said that we've created or saved UP TO 1.6 million jobs. That comment is undeniably true. Now, it doesn't give you the bottom estimate explicitly, but he didn't say that we've created 1.6 million jobs - he said UP TO 1.6 million jobs.
So, what Rove said was false, yet what he said gets a "Mostly True" label. What Obama said was 100% true, yet he got a "Half True" label! How does that calculus work?
So, if you think that the meter itself is inaccurate, you may be right, but since the actual article behind the rating is in depth, I see no real harm in rating things a little flexibly.
Also, to see them giving a Republican a hard time, see Marco Rubio's false rating for saying that he "never" voted for a tax increase. Apparently he voted for state budgets that forced other entities to raise property tax.
What I find odd overall is that most mainstream media seems to have given up actually researching topics. They've given up doing real, investigative journalism and digging for the truth. They have basically outsourced the research they should be doing to these "fact check" organizations.
Of course you could reason that people know that so aren't blaming him for it but that would be asking too much from the ignorant masses who are constantly being mis-informed by the main stream media.
Of course the white wing noise machine is doing EVERYTHING it can to mis-inform as much as possible.
If they weren't conservatively biased, they would cease being independent. They would look like raging liberals if they played truth right down the middle.