« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Quote a FactChecker Earn a Ban

I’ve pretty much had it with the grotesque turn the various “fact checking” organizations have taken. “Politifact” is little more than a bunch of shills, devoid of even the vestiges of integrity, that sling about “pants on fire” ratings to any GOP or conservative politician. The Washington Post is no exception. Back during the War on Women thing, Glenn Kessler, their alleged Fact Checker, penned this gem:

The Pinocchio Test
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.”

If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:

TRUE BUT FALSE

“True but false” rates right up there with “fake but accurate” in the annals of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

That is followed today by this bit, also in the Washington Post, by some yahoo named “Josh Hicks.” We’re presuming that is a pseudonym because it is doubtful that anyone would want the monstrosity that follows associated with their real name.

After awarding all sorts of “Pinocchios” to Mike Huckabee and an abortion survivor on the subject of Barack Obama’s votes and statements in favor of leaving babies who survive abortion to die. All their statements are true, by the way, but “Josh Hicks” just doesn’t like them. We find this monument to duplicity:

The evidence suggests we could have awarded Four Pinocchios to the former Illinois senator for his comments to the Christian Broadcasting Network, but that interview is several years old now, and it’s not the focus of this particular column. The president’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the matter of whether Obama’s 2008 comments on the Christian Broadcasting Network contradicted his 2003 vote against Illinois’s Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

So there is a statute of limitations on lying?

So this is the deal. I’ve awarded “Josh Hicks” my own award the Heady, for someone with his head up his fourth point of contact. In fact, I’ve awarded “Josh Hicks” the rare, and highly coveted, Quad-Heady.

I’m considering going even further.

In the past we’ve had a policy of banning people who argue in bad faith. As Politifact, and the whole menagerie of “fact checking” organizations have demonstrated themselves to be slavishly attached to the Administration’s nether regions I will consider quoting any of them, in a non-ironic way, as being evidence of arguing in bad faith and worthy of a ban.

What do you think?

COMMENTS

  • Melody Warbington

    streiff, maybe at least a warning in some cases. When I first arrived at redstate, I was in the dark about many things, politically speaking. I may have even linked to a site or two (not any factcheckers) that I later learned weren’t the most reliable of sources. No doubt y’all can tell pretty quickly the difference in those who are learning and need edification and those who are unteachable. Somebody did in my case.

  • dalecooper

    I think you’re painting with a bit of a broad brush. “True But False” means that the statement is technically true, but it was relayed in a manner that made the cause look like something other than it is. Sure, 7 out of 10 jobs lost “under Obama” were those of women, but it’s pretty hard to blame Obama for the 650,000 jobs we were losing each month (as much as I’d like to) right when he began occupying the White House.

    Sure, his policies have failed SINCE THEN, but when those policies weren’t even in place yet, it’s disingenuous to put those job losses “under Obama”, just as it is to put 9/11 “under Bush” when much of the cause was intelligence failures from the Clinton era, or to lay the credit for killing OBL at Obama’s feet (because the intelligence was from the Bush era).

  • streiff

    umm no. That is crap. And don’t give me the “as much as I’d like to” poo, either. Either the claim is true or false. There is a binary quality inherent in True/False situations.

  • dalecooper

    Nothing wrong with quoting a fact checker SO LONG AS you can go through their methodology and verify it yourself.

    It’s rather like sending someone to a wikipedia page for information: the citations are all at the bottom of the page for you to look up if you want, it’s not my job to regurgitate the ENTIRE argument from the bottom up every time I want to post something.

  • dalecooper

    Agreed on the comments about the Christian Broadcasting Network though. That deserved like 5 Pinocchios, I don’t care how long ago it was or what the “focus” was or whatever.

  • streiff

    For all my vast powers I don’t control colors on the front or any other page.

  • lineholder

    ROFL, okay. Got that. Just a thought. That small font in light grey against the white background just doesn’t work very well.

  • dalecooper

    Ah, Googled it, some anon redirecter thing. Um, no, I’m not that skilled. lol

  • streiff

    the disposable email address is problematic. That has historically been an auto-ban.

  • dalecooper

    Oh, sorry, I can replace it.

  • Locked and Loaded

    True but false, yes and no…
    Muddled, confused, bungling, stupid, aimless, disordered… Take your pick.

  • http://www.lvjmusic.com lvjohnston

    Streiff, I have no issue with this position. In my opinion, this is as necessary as getting the RINO’s out of office as soon as re-election will allow. These so called ‘experts’ are destroying the common meanings of ‘fact’ and ‘checking’ – that same as has been done to other words like ‘racist’, ‘racism’ and ‘suppression’.

    Word *do* have meanings but and this process of reinventing and distorting the language is to mislead and confuse the average intellect.

  • http://therileyreilly.wordpress.com/ therileyreilly

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/10/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-obama-administration-trying-boos/

    http://therileyreilly.wordpress.com/

    Am I banned? lol

  • angryguy77

    Sure why not. It’s not like RS is ban-happy enough as it is

  • rightlane1111

    OK…I agree Streiff…and this was on my mail today. This seems pretty factual to me AND NOBODY knows about this deal. It seems like others are trying to film video to prove their points…much like Breitbart. If this video is true…and it sure looks like it to me…especially in the state it is in…what do we do about this kind of stuff…THAT NEVER GETS MENTIONED.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GqMVxeZhflI&feature=player_embedded

  • paulavery1951

    Interesting action and comments. But this “fact check ban” illustrates why wildly partisan sites like redstate.com have little weight in the broader national discourse: they have no contrary opinions and lack any nuanced analysis. Maybe people should think about reading other points of view for a change.

  • morgango

    So, here’s my take. I actually just been discovering this site and enjoying the discussion. I disagree with A LOT of what is said here, but still read because in large part I can see that there are good people with different opinions here. I learn things here.

    My politics are left-wing, to be sure. However, I am anything but an an ideologue. I personally considered myself a Republican at one time, and even voted for George H.W. Bush in my first election. However, as time went on I felt that the party simply was too extreme for me. It is pretty hard to alienate someone who lives in Texas, teaches Sunday School, has a traditional marriage, and is a veteran of the Marine Corps Infantry. But the modern Republican party did that a long time ago.
    I believe you would discredit the integrity of this site by banning references to fact-checking. Don’t put conservatism on the side of being ‘anti-fact’, even if you think that is just a rhetorical trick. If an external site is consistently telling lies, then there is no way they can stay credible for long. People generally can sniff out bias, especially over the long term. So, if you think the fact-checkers are wrong then their value will be marginalized very quickly and linking to them will just discredit the user. Your integrity is worth much more than short term frustration.
    If you cannot effectively communicate your ideas in the public sphere, then you need to up your game, not take your ball and go home. Don’t hamstring others, just defend your ideas and your candidate (if you can). I know I certainly will. You can dispute the ideas of others in civil discourse, that is what it means to be a citizen.

  • Jack_Savage

    One vote for HELL yes.
    Either they are disingenuous or stupid. Either way, RedState can do without them.

  • Jack_Savage

    Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006. How much blame are you going to lay at their feet for the 650,000 per month job losses? Or are you going to pretend they got beamed down from the Enterprise in 2008 and weren’t here before that?

  • Jack_Savage

    Exactly what did the modern Republican party do to alienate you? Or is abortion until the moment of birth a single issue for you? Or maybe hostility toward Israel and God a hill to die on? You teach Sunday school? No feeling that Democrats are…ummm…a little lukewarm to Christianity?

    Pray tell, how is the GOP extreme compared to the Democrats? And tell me how do Democrats stay credible for so long when their beliefs are demonstrably, provably false?

    I really think I am going to puke.

  • Jack_Savage

    Then why quote the fact checker if you’ve done the work?

  • RedstateBillS

    HAHAHA. I never thought of that. I’m doing it, too.

  • RedstateBillS

    Sweet. 86 down votes. I’m going for the record here…

  • vangoghssister

    Go for it Streiff! Have fun playing whack-a-troll/moby/factcheck quoter/eejit. You mods get to do all the good stuff. :-}

  • Melody Warbington

    You have some competition. streiff has 112 down votes on his comment http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/11/quote-a-factchecker-earn-a-ban/#comment-646877246

    I assume you’d rather us not skew the results by chipping in – just let the trolls have their fun.

  • jamesm

    Orcs piled on Streiff. Must be dkos in-breeding . Look up.. 113 at last count.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I’m feeling “wildly partisan” tonight. Last night I was “severely conservative.” Living the dream!!!

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I am sure you are talking about our lack of interest in apologizing to the enemy when they attack us and burn down our embassies.

  • RedstateBillS

    No fair. I think streiff stuffed the ballot box.

  • Melody Warbington

    Too bad you can’t answer whether or not you think our nation should be judged by the way it treats the weakest among us. I’d also like to know if you think Obama’s votes against the ban on partial birth abortion (the procedure where they kill the baby after it’s halfway out of the womb) are “incompatible” with your faith.

  • lineholder

    Just look at it as a badge of honor, Bill!

  • Melody Warbington

    I’m bitterly clinging tonight.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Morgango, may I suggest a book that may help clarify some of the items in your list? Jonah Goldberg’s “The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas” addresses some of the common throw-away phrases people use to avoid substantively arguing the substance of their ideas and proposals.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/top-five-cliches-liberals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/2012/04/27/gIQAFR1zlT_story.html

  • jamesm

    Orc season. Still have till November.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Wiping the Pepsi off my monitor….

  • retrocon87

    This is reminding me of a Hannity episode from a few months ago… it was a week or so before the Wisconsin recall election, Frank Luntz was doing a focus group w/ Wisconsin voters, they started shouting at each other about whether or not there was truly a budget deficit when Walker came into office, and Luntz just paused and said “if people can’t even agree on the facts anymore you know something is becoming seriously wrong here”… I think I’m about at the point here where I stock up on guns, gold, dried food, move into a bomb shelter, pop out for a split second to pull the lever for Romney, and then go back until things finally calm down (if ever). I feel like everyone is starting to lose their freaking minds and I’m in the middle of the Twilight Zone…

  • retrocon87

    An American got killed today at our consulate in Libya… looks like our new friends there are pretty thankful for us sticking our neck out to save them from Qaddafi. I’m pretty sure we must have offended them somehow since then, though, so yeah, we should be apologizing to them I suppose…

  • olivernorth

    as my boss would say- “there you go again!1″ obvious troll is obvious; while my boss loved the same sushi that GHW Bush puked onto the emporer’s lap, that sushi provided by the empire of the right Reverend Sung Myung Moon [rip, god]- the Washington Post was Moon’s crowning asset in his diverse gun running, crime ridden portfolio. Good thread; it is telling you have more comments than likes on facebook. I will do what I can to remedy this, as I love trolling religious republitards on facebook.

  • kipling

    You may want to work on developing a coherent post first.

  • sablegsd

    Amen.

  • sablegsd

    What makes you think we don’t read the enemy sites?
    Not for very long, as I can’t stand the brain dead, cloyingly commie hypocritical
    rhetoric for very long.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Amen – perhaps we should apologize to the Japanese for our response after Pearl Harbor or we can apologize to Putin for “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall”…an apologipolooza. #Sarcasm. I have a better solution though Mr. President – when we have a bought, contented ally like Mubarak – how about we just keep him contented and paid for and not throw him back for a radical Islamist regime.

  • Martin Knight

    Wow … this is your brain on drugs.

  • proudmarinemom

    choom choom choom

  • RedstateBillS

    Bye, Kev.

  • Finrod

    The problem is that ‘fact checker’ sites purport to be checking facts, but what they’re really doing is substituting their own opinion and calling it a fact. This is active duplicity and needs to be activelly called out and mocked as much as possible.

  • defensephysicist

    Where is the satire flag?

  • celador2

    KUDOS!
    Well spoke, sir!

  • jaykali

    When I see a fact checking link in my Facebook feed I want to blow my brains out. But instead I just unsubscribe or unfriend the idiot who posted it.