PolitiFact's Adair falsely suggested his site found equal lack of truth this summer from Obama and McCain camps
SUMMARY: PolitiFact.com editor Bill Adair falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's campaigns have been equally guilty of making what PolitiFact has characterized as inaccurate claims in public statements and political ads this summer. In fact, since June 7, 57 percent of Obama's claims assessed by PolitiFact were rated "mostly true" or better, while 62 percent of McCain's statements assessed by PolitiFact were described as "half true" or worse. Further, McCain has twice received PolitiFact's sharpest critique, "pants on fire," a designation not given to any Obama statement.
On the August 25 edition of MSNBC Live, PolitiFact.com editor Bill Adair, discussing his website's assessment of campaign attacks this summer, falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's campaigns have been equally guilty of making what PolitiFact has characterized as inaccurate claims in public statements and political ads. Adair criticized Obama for what he said was a "barely true" attack on McCain and after describing it, said that "we've given a lot of 'barely true' ratings lately on our Truth-O-Meter. We've been looking at the TV ads, also at their speeches. And it's the same on McCain's side. It's really -- the truth has been a casualty of summer." In fact, it is not "the same on McCain's side." According to a review of PolitiFact's findings since Sen. Hillary Clinton's concession speech on June 7, 57 percent of Obama's claims assessed by PolitiFact were called "mostly true" or better, while 62 percent of McCain's claims assessed by PolitiFact were described as "half true" or worse. Moreover, McCain is the only one of the two to receive PolitiFact's sharpest critique, "pants on fire," which he received twice this summer.
During the segment, MSNBC host Dan Abrams stated, "With the way that McCain and Obama have been trading attacks you'd think that we're days away from Election Day, rather than months," then asked Adair, "You say that the truth has become a casualty of that?" Adair responded, "[W]e wouldn't have expected these kind of attacks so early in the campaign," adding, "What's different is that we're seeing many more inaccurate claims earlier than we would have expected."
PolitiFact rates what it calls "attacks" and "statements" made either by a candidate or his campaign, as either "true," "mostly true," "half true," "barely true" -- which Adair described to Abrams as a statement with "a grain of truth, but the overall point is false" -- "false," or "pants on fire."


From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the August 25 edition of MSNBC Live:
ABRAMS: It's time to check in with PolitiFact.com's Truth-O-Meter. Bill Adair is the St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief and the editor of PolitiFact.com. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it.
ADAIR: Thanks for having me.
ABRAMS: All right. We're going to get to [Sen. Joe] Biden in a second. With the way McCain and Obama have been trading attacks, you'd think we're sort of days away from Election Day, rather than months. Now, you say that the truth has become a casualty of that.
ADAIR: It really has. We wouldn't have expected these kind of attacks so early in the campaign.
ABRAMS: Really?
ADAIR: We --
ABRAMS: Why not?
ADAIR: What's different is that we're seeing many more inaccurate claims earlier than we would have expected.
ABRAMS: Like, out of -- out of -- falsity, or context?
ADAIR: Now, what they do -- and on our Truth-O-Meter, it's often a -- we rate it a "barely true." There'll be a grain of truth, but the overall point is false, and so we give that a "barely true."
Some typical claims is when Obama links McCain to Big Oil and says that he's giving big tax breaks to Big Oil. Well, he is, but he's giving them to all corporations. And we've given a lot of "barely true" ratings lately on our Truth-O-Meter. We've been looking at the TV ads, also at their speeches. And it's the same on McCain's side. It's really -- the truth has been a casualty of summer.
ABRAMS: All right. You took out your Truth -- the Truth-O-Meter, measured some of the claims that Biden has made about McCain in his speech on Saturday. Here's one.
BIDEN [video clip]: These are John's words, quote: "The most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." Ladies and gentlemen, that's what he said.
ABRAMS: He said it, didn't he?
ADAIR: He did. We checked that one out, went back. It came from a Meet the Press interview in 2005, so that one got a "true" on our Truth-O-Meter.
ABRAMS: All right. In the very next breath, Biden said this. Let's listen.
BIDEN [video clip]: You can't change America when you supported George Bush's policies 95 percent of the time.
ABRAMS: All right. So, same speech, almost the same sentence; he gets a different rating.
ADAIR: He did. We gave him a "half true" for that one. And the reason is that he is quoting one year in McCain's -- how often McCain votes with President Bush. But if you look at McCain's record over the entire Bush administration, he's been as low as 77 percent, which is very low for a Republican, and averaged about 89 percent. So we gave that one a "half true" on the Truth-O-Meter.
ABRAMS: All right. And then the last but not least, we go to the -- what you call the Flip-O-Meter, the latest and greatest tool from PolitiFact. We are learning today that Biden actually pressed hard to get this spot on Obama's ticket, but listen to what he had to say two months ago on Meet the Press.
[begin video clip]
BIDEN: If asked, I will do it. I've made it clear -- I do not want to be asked.
BRIAN WILLIAMS (guest host): Do not want to be asked, but if asked, the answer, of course, would be yeah.
BIDEN: Of course it would be.
[end video clip]
ABRAMS: All right. Well, look. You know, this one -- you guys are really doing a Truth-O-Meter on this? Because, they all -- I mean, they all said this, right?
ADAIR: Exactly.
ABRAMS: I mean --
ADAIR: And, indeed, nobody wants to be seen as campaigning for --
ABRAMS: Right.
ADAIR: -- for the running-mate spot, but we wanted to have a little fun here. And if you go back through some of the other things he said, he had been really adamant that he would not take it under any circumstances, and he's pounding the desk about it. So we gave that one a "full flop" on the Flip-O-Meter.
ABRAMS: All right. You know, it'd be interesting to see if anyone has totally told the truth about -- in this election season. We'll see who the Republicans pick. We'll see who McCain picks and what that person has said. My guess: That person, at the very least, has claimed they didn't want the job.
ADAIR: Exactly. And I think that's just part of the ritual dance. You don't want to be seen as too eager to be running mate --
ABRAMS: Yeah.
ADAIR: -- but, you know, for PolitiFact, it's fair game. And --
ABRAMS: Oh, yeah, I know. It's fair game. You know. All right.















Yeah, I love that an organization that evaluates truth wanted "to have some fun."
Is there any way Abrams could have squeezed any LESS useful information out of that interview? The public would have been better served by looking at the two bar charts for two minutes!
The public would have been better served by looking at the two bar charts for two minutes!
But no one had those bar charts. MMFA made them. Adair probably didn't even know the cumulative results of his own fact checking work. He was speaking off the top of his head. Most embarrasing for a "fact-checker".
You mean to say that 'he said, she said' doesn't always give a fair representation of who's telling the truth and who's not?
Well, you could have knocked FoxNews down with a feather! They always thought it did!
Many rightie posters here think it does - they'll claim that both parties are guilty of some offensive behavior, yet they can't quite provide any evidence that it's true. They'll say that MSNBC is just as bad as FoxNews, but when you ask them to present evidence that MSNBC is anywhere close to as extreme as FoxNews, they can't provide that evidence.
The evidence of PolitiFact that shows that 2 of John McCain's ads got 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ratings and none of Obama's got that same rating should've given this guy a clue.
Someone needs to get him a new 'thinker', apparently, because the 'thinker' he's got is faulty.
One of the stunning things I see from those graphs, besides the number of really flawed ads and attacks that McCain has made, versus Obama, is the number of positive, wholly true statements Obama has made - twice as many as McCain. The comparison is stark.
But this guy says that they're seeing less truth and more falsehoods earlier than usual in a campaign? Why didn't he just admit that it was a result of the negative, untrue ads and attacks from John McCain?
It seems that the "Pants on Fire" awards...
would be the most watched. These are egregious, outright lies from Grampah McCain.
Abrams didn't even ask about those? Didn't want to upset his corporate masters I guess.
This is not unique to Abrams, of course. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we were dragged into Iraq on a skid greased with lies, no one in the MSM seems willing to discuss it. This is the same bunch of talking heads that filled countless hours bloviating about Bill Clinton's BJ lie. I just don't get it. You'd think it would be the biggest story of the decade.
What these people characterize as "inaccurate claims in public statements and political ads", seem more to be statements (and ads) that say "we don't believe in the other guy", or "we don't believe his promises"... it doesn't seem like these things are about what is accurate or not, or what is fact or truth, but are merely about NO CONFIDENCE in the other guy: so what else is new in an American political campaign?
I have my own appraisal of the two campaigns so far: no, I do not think them negative (like every pundit and media hack is trying to convince you of), I think the two campaigns so far to be as EMPTY VACUOUS INANE INSUBSTANTIAL and DEVOID of actual National Policy ideas or discussions, as they could possibly be...
With one exception.
Sen. Obama delivered a 38-minute speech at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center on July 15... here's a link to a text of that speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html
It stands sort of alone this summer, as saying something in public that is important and substantial and true... everything else has been mostly just vague warm and fuzzy talk, flavored strongly with NO CONFIDENCE and NO BELIEF in the other guy and in the things he says: so what else is new?
Once again, Truth eludes the Truthseeker.
That's why he's still seeking; he has never found it, and wouldn't recognize it if it walked up to him and introduced itself.