Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I know how you feel, Politifact.
Is it a neurotic obsession joke?
Close but it should be more like:[stick figure] "I swear I closed that window"[Politifact] "Politifact says 'False' unless, of course, your a Dem, then Politifact says 'mostly true'"
I think I have all the DVDs worth having. Also recommended is leading toA young man and woman meet on a train in Europe, and wind up spending one evening together in Vienna. Unfortunately, both know that this will probably be their only night together. (105 mins.)Nine years after Jesse and Celine first met, they encounter each other again on the French leg of Jesse's book tour. (80 mins.)We meet Jesse and Celine nine years on in Greece. Almost two decades have passed since their first meeting on that train bound for Vienna. (109 mins.)I'm not likely to expand my genre preferences to woman-friendly sci fi, either.Two sisters find their already strained relationship challenged as a mysterious new planet threatens to collide with Earth.
One only has to spend 5 minutes reading through any spell of Politifact's "work" to see that it not only "leans" left, but- and this is the most damning part - takes so very very many statements of clear opinion and then those things that can never be verified as truth and yet still calling up or down. THAT is the very definition of Partisan, no matter which side you fall on. Politifact is an embarasssment to the left and I truly delight in discussing with my ledt leaning friends, several of which not only acknowledge it's partisanhip, but also never count on it. There are SOME liberals with integrity. Politifact has zero.
I had never clicked through to politifact until I saw this post. Interesting messaging in their logo. Politics IS blue while fact IS red. I suppose this is their idea of balance.
@rhhardin Bullshit travel porn.
Politicfact's leftward bias is fairly obvious. It's really a shame, because it would be nice to have a purely objective "fact checker" type website (assuming that's even possible).
My all-time favorite fact-check was when Politifact declared a completely true statement by Romney to be "true but false". Because while it was literally true, other facts would have given you a different perspective on the issue. The usual straining at Republican gnats and swallowing Democrat camels ensued.Forbes summarizes a list of the 10 worst fact checks:10. That thing you didn’t say isn’t true.9. That thing you said is true, but it doesn’t matter.8. That thing you said could maybe be true, but it won’t be soon because things will get better.6. That thing you said isn’t true because we trust this one article we Googled more than official reports.5. That thing you said isn’t true because everything you say is a lie.4. That thing you said isn’t true because it sounds really awful, unless something similar comes up about the guy we hate.3. That thing you said was never true, but you deserve wiggle room.2. That thing you said is false because I have my own truth.1. That thing you said is true but false
The whole fact checking racket was first pioneered by organized crime. Storekeepers never knew they needed protection until Luigi showed up and explained it to them.
Imagine serving on a jury for a complicated case at which the judge has ordered the court reporter to provide a daily transcript of presentations made by both (all?) sides. Of course the process is adversarial; so any claims made will be addressed by counter-claims; evidence will met with contradictory evidence; testimony with conflicting testimony ...Now imagine yourself being a juror receiving, not a transcript, but excerpts or abstracts of a day's proceedings. The paragraphs have "catchy" headers or bulleted labels: "Prosecution's newest witness regurgitates previously refuted allegations..." or "Defense has great day with attractive, plausible, witness." And as the trial moves along you notice the actual events of the day are recorded less and less and new information is provided, NOT about the actual case but the affect of the recent evidence and testimony on your fellow jurors: "Jury's Women leaning toward acquittal, insiders report" or "Catholic Male Jurors say faith, not evidence, may determine outcome." Now imagine that DURING TESTIMONY the court reporter intervenes to "correct" or "refute" or "Fact Check" a witnesses remarks. How long does this go on before you lose interest in the actual trial and begin plotting the removal of the court reporter?
Just figure out who funds them and you will understand the source of their opinions and you will know what they intend. Since we know that about Politifact there is nothing further to say. This all is rather pointless.
Politifact is big on politics and little on facts but they certainly politicize facts.I'd rate Politicfact's claim of being Politifact as mostly false but completely true.
"Brent said...There are SOME liberals with integrity."At best there are some liberals with some integrity. Not many. And not much.
The first half of their name is "true", the second half is "mostly false"...
Kinda like Snopes.
Politifact contains only leftist "facts".
Earlier this week my local NPR station had the fact checker guy they use (I think he's affiliated with either Politifact or something similar) to evaluate some recent statements. Right off the bat they talked about Trump's campaign emails (daily, apparently) saying that Hillary Clinton hasn't held a press conference in 2xx days. The rating: Half True.WHAT? They discussed the fact that it was LITERALLY TRUE, that it didn't distort anything, and that it wasn't misleading. That gets "Half True." See, Hillary has given a lot of interviews and just recently took a few questions from the press on her plane. So in order to find the statement partially false they pretended it was some other statement ("Hillary doesn't take any questions" or some such) and found that that statement--the one they made up--wasn't accurate.Seriously, what purpose does that serve?! Balderdash.
Snopes and Politifact have standards. They have twice as many standards as you lot!
Let me go in a slightly different direction and point out that the comic strip you are posting is ex-NASA genius Randall Munroe's "XKCD". If you are not following this strip, you should be as it is frequently brilliant. His long "Time" sequence in fact won a Hugo Award in 2014 (go here for one of the "Time" replay sites).Also salient is the fact that "XKCD" always includes "hover text" with additional plot or joke development. Whenever you show an XKCD comic, you should also provide a link to the site for the hovertext. In this case, the link to the Polifact comic is here and the hovertext is:Ok, I lit the smoke bomb and rolled it under the bed. Let's see if it--" ::FWOOOSH:: " Politifact says: PANTS ON FIRE!"I should probably also mention that XKCD is the source of the most famous, or perhaps second most famous webcomic about The Internet: DUTY CALLS
XKCD can be quite brilliant.However, its take on the Eich matter made it clear he didn't want people like me reading it and so I granted his request. A pity.
Its take on globull worming made me want to stop reading, so I did.
Post a Comment