lies shutterstock

It is no secret that the mainstream media might as well be on the DNC’s payroll. Major scandals involving Democrats go unremarked. When they are remarked upon, often the political affiliation is buried deep in the story if mentioned at all. I’m not talking only about the editorial pages, the devotion of the media to Democrats infests the actual news gathering function of newspapers, magazines, and online media. One of the most pernicious things to be contrived by the media is the “fact checking” charade.

It started out with a simple premise: the media would check statements made by various political figures and rate them on truthfulness. And who to better do this than people allied with the Democrat party who have a degree in journalism?

Today at POLITICO, Jack Shafer is bemoaning the fact that liberal shills calling politicians they dislike liars has no discernable impact.

What to conclude from this? Perhaps that the fact-checkers don’t know what they’re writing about—which I reject—or that Trump supporters don’t know about the fact-checker’s findings, which seems wildly unlikely given the saturation coverage his lies have enjoyed. My guess is that Trump supporters don’t believe and just don’t care what the fact checkers say.

So should the fact checkers abandon their Pinocchios and trash their Pants on Fire meters and let the lying liars lie? Of course not! The truth matters! But campaign 2016 teaches us that the truth matters in politics less than any of us ever believed. Just ask the fact-checkers. And Donald Trump.

In other words, supporters of politicians are predisposed to either ignore or forgive their lies. There is truth there for sure. Bill Clinton is an epic case of a man whose acquaintance with the truth was so fleeting that he couldn’t pick it out of a two-man line-up, and still his supporters… and virtually all the professional press corps… ate up whatever lie he was spinning at the moment.

The larger problem is that no thinking, discerning person trusts the various fact checking organizations. Back in September 2012, I announced that I would ban any commenter on RedState quoting a “fact checker” in an argument. What brought that on was Glenn Kessler, the Grand Poobah of The Washington Post’s FactCheck fraud, awarded the RNC a rating of “True but False.” Seriously. True but False. When they evaluated Obama’s claim that he had never opposed the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, they found that he had but that the vote happened in 2003 and therefore it was too far in the past to call Obama’s claim a lie. In RedState coverage alone we can offer this about the veracity of various fact checkers:

PolitiFact ruled a Rick Perry claim as “mostly false” when it was demonstrably 100% accurate.

When Sean Davis of The Federalist posted disclosed expenditures by the Clinton Foundation, PolitiFact’s retarded younger sibling, PunditFact, said the numbers were correct but rated the article “mostly false” because, and I swear on my grandfather’s grave I am not making this up, it gave the wrong impression. And they never disclosed they were nearly 100% funded by one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation.

PunditFact “fact checked” [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ]’s opinion on the significance of the Iran nuclear deal and found his opinion to be false despite the fact that he was repeating a claim made by the IAEA.

PunditFact “fact checked” an opinion by Erick Erickson.

Yes, people are predisposed to ignore exaggerations made by politicians that they like but people are also smart enough to disregard the egregious disregard for truth shown by the alleged “fact checkers.” And, after seeing the blatant and calculated political attacks waged by fact checkers on conservatives, why would I trust their critique of Democrats… to the extent that it even exists.