About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Prospect (December 21, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
        4
      Ehhh, i more often than not agree with Media Matters, but i think in this one.. you guys are kind making much ado about nothing. This one is okay. Sure, Rove is most of the time a liar.. but PolitiFact didn't say he was right, just said that he wasn't far off from being right.

      Reading into his words a little too much here, MMFA.. I say ya let this one go.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (December 21, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
        4 1
        No, they said that what he said was mostly true.

        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?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by venturieffect (December 21, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
             
          Well you've got to keep in mind that ratings like half, barely, or mostly true are pretty subjective and arbitrary. You may cite this as a serious flaw, using your job numbers example, but Politifact's actual analysis is, in my opinion, excellent.

          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.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by sneakypie (December 21, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
      3  
      It's wrong, wrong, wrong. It's like saying, "I got them all right except for one". It's a lie told by Karl Rove to benefit the right wing and PolitiFact needs to offer a correction.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (December 21, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
           
        I don't think they will. I sent an email to them almost immediately, and they haven't replied or corrected it. It just doesn't make sense with the way they typically rate these things.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brian in FL (December 21, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
          2  
          The St. Pete Times (who run Politifact) is probably the best newspaper in my area, but they fall for the same need to find the center position as most mainstream media. They are terrified of being accused of being partisan, so they have to find ways to bash Democrats or to excuse lies from Republicans (like Rove's polling lie). They do it less than other mainstream media, but they still do it nonetheless.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (December 21, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
               
            I think that Politifact leans right much of the time. If you look at what they classify as a lie from someone on the left, they are very strict, too strict. And I do think it's a "both sides do it" kinda thing that taints our national debate.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (December 21, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      1  
      Yeah, and the excuses given for invading Iraq were "mostly true", since Saddam really would have been a threat if he had all that stuff they said he had, except that he didn't have it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mustardman (December 21, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
      2  
      To any rational person, the fact Obamas approval is as high as it is given the incredible mess he was left with is quite impressive.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff191 (December 21, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
           
        the ignorant masses. who do you think you are? not every one who disagrees with you is a dumb redneck, a moron, or evil. Your self righteous superior attitude is no different than those right wingers who constantly cast aspersions on democrats or progressives. It is all too easy to fall into their trap and play their games but whats the point of that.if you hope to influence the debate than do it with facts , with humour, insight. insult rush and beck and dobbs and fox and all those media whores who deserve it. but implying the masses who arent as enlightened as you are ignorant? you lose before you begin with that attitude
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Reinhard (December 21, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
         
      Mostly true, kind of pregnant, complete stop. Just semantics, right?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (December 21, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
      1  
      Independent fact-check organizations are guaranteed to be conservatively biased. Trust their facts but not their judgments.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (December 22, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
         
      Since when does Rove care about approval ratings? He certainly didn't when Dubya's were in the toilet.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.