The Wall

[Poopadoop]

Bryan White, who operates the blog PolitiFactBias, did an analysis and according to Human Events found “PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous, and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat-out lied nine times more often than liberals.

I wonder how those numbers would change if Trump was on the other team.

[Jack Sawyer]

I wonder how those numbers would change if Trump was on the other team.

But the devil, as usual, is in the fucking details.


It says “PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals” But what if the conservatives were actually wrong? It only states that they are declared wrong more, not if the wrong declaration is actually justified or not. Just that, according to this Brian White, for Politifact to be unbiased they should declare liberals equal times wrong as conservaties.


DUC what he did there?

[Poopadoop]

But the devil, as usual, is in the fucking details.


It says “PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals” But what if the conservatives were actually wrong? It only states that they are declared wrong more, not if the wrong declaration is actually justified or not. Just that, according to this Brian White, for Politifact to be unbiased they should declare liberals equal times wrong as conservaties.


DUC what he did there?

I DC. It would be funny (and pretty much blow away their argument) if you put Trump in the liberal camp and the ratio swung entirely the other way due to him alone.

I agree it's wrong to assume the baseline amount of lying is equal and the reporting is biased. Still, I think they may have some point - 3:1 seems a bit large. One possibility is that conservatives get checked more because they're more associated with lying and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way.

Another is as I implied above that the cons just have a few very big liars and that swings it. Can't be bothered to look it over in detail myself though and sort it all out.

[BananaStand]

I wonder how those numbers would change if Trump was on the other team.

Do the numbers mean anything if they are based on subjective criteria employed by biased individuals?

[Poopadoop]

Do the numbers mean anything if they are based on subjective criteria employed by biased individuals?

No they would not. But no-one has established that what you say is the case yet, all you have are more cons being caught lying than libs.

[BananaStand]

No they would not. But no-one has established that what you say is the case yet, all you have are more cons being caught lying than libs.

How is it not established? The creator of politifact himself admits the criteria is entirely subjective.

Can't be bothered to look it over in detail myself though and sort it all out.

Says you and hundreds of millions of indoctrinated anti-conservatives. Do you see why the liberal agenda is so pervasive?

[Poopadoop]

How is it not established? The creator of politifact himself admits the criteria is entirely subjective.

Um, subjective doesn't mean systematically biased. Moreover, if he tried to claim the criteria were completely objective, he'd be guilty of talking shit.

Says you and hundreds of millions of indoctrinated anti-conservatives. Do you see why the liberal agenda is so pervasive?

Says you and hundreds of millions of indoctrinated anti-liberals. Do you see why the conservative agenda is so pervasive?

No, the reason I can't be bothered to go through hundreds of fact-checks and their sources is because a) I have a life already thank you; and b) I'm not using them to argue for my beliefs.

[BananaStand]

Um, subjective doesn't mean systematically biased.

It kinda does if that subjective criteria is not applied in a objectively consistent way. In other words, over time, the results of these determinations will mirror the internal biases of the person doing the fact-checking.

[Jack Sawyer]

Do the numbers mean anything if they are based on subjective criteria employed by biased individuals?

And this is the thing with Fox News in particular