- CJ7
- 08-31-2012, 01:00 PM
- Whirlaway
- 08-31-2012, 01:10 PM
The Media's 'Fact Check' Smokescreen
Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?
Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.
"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."
What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.
Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.
An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."
CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."
Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.
But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?
In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."
The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?
This isn't to say that journalists shouldn't check facts. Of course they should.
The problem is that the mainstream press is now abusing the "fact check" label, using it to more aggressively push a liberal agenda without feeling the need to provide any balance whatsoever. And, as the reaction to the Ryan speech shows, they are now blatantly using it to provide air support for Obama.
Is it any wonder that soon after Ryan's speech ended, the Obama campaign rushed out an ad using the media's "fact check" stories as its source?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ral-agenda.htm
Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?
Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.
"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."
What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.
Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.
An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."
CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."
Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.
But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?
In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."
The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?
This isn't to say that journalists shouldn't check facts. Of course they should.
The problem is that the mainstream press is now abusing the "fact check" label, using it to more aggressively push a liberal agenda without feeling the need to provide any balance whatsoever. And, as the reaction to the Ryan speech shows, they are now blatantly using it to provide air support for Obama.
Is it any wonder that soon after Ryan's speech ended, the Obama campaign rushed out an ad using the media's "fact check" stories as its source?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ral-agenda.htm
- CJ7
- 08-31-2012, 01:13 PM
please whirlie ..
it doesnt take a fact check to know Williard hasnt offered any type policy other than "I will do this and that" .. but refuses to say how he will do anything ..
it doesnt take a fact check to know Williard hasnt offered any type policy other than "I will do this and that" .. but refuses to say how he will do anything ..
- Whirlaway
- 08-31-2012, 01:20 PM
No one; and they have been proven to be liars; like Kessler who runs the Washington Post Fact Check site.
WaPo Fact Checker Goes Full-Orwell: Facts Earn Pinocchios to Protect Obama
by John Nolte 6 Aug 2012
Apparently Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has decided to go the route of the thoroughly discredited Politifact and make a complete and public fool of himself -- all, of course, in a crusade to protect Barack Obama.
In today's Post, Kessler takes on two ads critical of Obama and the attention he has paid (or hasn't) to Israel, specifically his decision not to visit Israel as president.
Here are the key criticisms Kessler attempts to protect Obama from -- the numbering and responses are mine:
1. A pro-Israel group last week began running ads knocking President Obama for failing to visit Israel. The ad is filled with the sounds of Chinese gongs and Arabian sounds, and postcard-like images showing Obama in his world travels, often arm-in-arm with Arab leaders.
ME: It is simply a fact that Obama did not visit Israel in his first term.
2. Then, on Sunday, the Romney campaign echoed this charge with its own ad also calling attention to Obama not visiting Israel as president. …
ME: Again, it is simply a fact that Obama did not visit Israel in his first term.
3. The Emergency Committee [for Israel] ad also suggests that Obama has visited Arab countries rather than Israel. …
ME: It is simply a fact that Obama did visit Arab countries while choosing to not visit Israel.
4. The ad also incorrectly says Obama has “traveled all over the Middle East.” Obama visited just Turkey and Iraq in April 2009, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia in June 2009.
ME: Kessler's assertion that Obama visiting four Middle East countries in two years does not qualify as "travel[ling] all over the Middle East" is his opinion, not a fact.
For criticizing Obama in these four areas, Kessler awards two Pinocchios to both the Romney campaign and The Emergency Committee for Israel. In other words, Kessler calls them liars for stating FACTS.
In order to protect Obama from these FACTS, in a piece of pathetic dissembling Orwell would appreciate, Kessler pulls together only the information that backs a conclusion I'm willing to bet he very much wanted to come to. And by doing so, under the phony shield of a fact checker, he attempts to bail Obama out and declares Romney and The Emergency Committee liars -- liars for stating FACTS.
If Kessler wants to write an opinion column refuting these ads, that's perfectly acceptable. But to puff himself up as a fact checker and do this is not only arrogant, it's dishonest.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...es-Full-Orwell
WaPo Fact Checker Goes Full-Orwell: Facts Earn Pinocchios to Protect Obama
by John Nolte 6 Aug 2012
Apparently Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has decided to go the route of the thoroughly discredited Politifact and make a complete and public fool of himself -- all, of course, in a crusade to protect Barack Obama.
In today's Post, Kessler takes on two ads critical of Obama and the attention he has paid (or hasn't) to Israel, specifically his decision not to visit Israel as president.
Here are the key criticisms Kessler attempts to protect Obama from -- the numbering and responses are mine:
1. A pro-Israel group last week began running ads knocking President Obama for failing to visit Israel. The ad is filled with the sounds of Chinese gongs and Arabian sounds, and postcard-like images showing Obama in his world travels, often arm-in-arm with Arab leaders.
ME: It is simply a fact that Obama did not visit Israel in his first term.
2. Then, on Sunday, the Romney campaign echoed this charge with its own ad also calling attention to Obama not visiting Israel as president. …
ME: Again, it is simply a fact that Obama did not visit Israel in his first term.
3. The Emergency Committee [for Israel] ad also suggests that Obama has visited Arab countries rather than Israel. …
ME: It is simply a fact that Obama did visit Arab countries while choosing to not visit Israel.
4. The ad also incorrectly says Obama has “traveled all over the Middle East.” Obama visited just Turkey and Iraq in April 2009, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia in June 2009.
ME: Kessler's assertion that Obama visiting four Middle East countries in two years does not qualify as "travel[ling] all over the Middle East" is his opinion, not a fact.
For criticizing Obama in these four areas, Kessler awards two Pinocchios to both the Romney campaign and The Emergency Committee for Israel. In other words, Kessler calls them liars for stating FACTS.
In order to protect Obama from these FACTS, in a piece of pathetic dissembling Orwell would appreciate, Kessler pulls together only the information that backs a conclusion I'm willing to bet he very much wanted to come to. And by doing so, under the phony shield of a fact checker, he attempts to bail Obama out and declares Romney and The Emergency Committee liars -- liars for stating FACTS.
If Kessler wants to write an opinion column refuting these ads, that's perfectly acceptable. But to puff himself up as a fact checker and do this is not only arrogant, it's dishonest.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...es-Full-Orwell
- Whirlaway
- 08-31-2012, 01:23 PM
- CJ7
- 08-31-2012, 01:25 PM
since you can easily refute the sources then by all means, please quote willards economic policies
chapter and verse would be nice ..
chapter and verse would be nice ..
- Whirlaway
- 08-31-2012, 01:33 PM
To start we have the Ryan Plan to save Medicare; where is Obama's plan ?
- CJ7
- 08-31-2012, 01:46 PM