LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE

[Big RR]

LR--while it might well be unscientific, I would think selecting facts to check for the repubs would inevitably include facts on which conservative pundits rant and rave. Facts for the dems would probably not be directed to the same issues, and I would think some liberal sacred oxen might well be gored. What is the complaint, that the dems are called on less facts or that the facts are selected to make the dems look more truthful. FWIW, it does appear that once the biggest jerks (be they Trump or O'Malley) are ignored, the differences are not that great. It's just that the repubs, with their angry rhetoric, have a far greater number of jerks in the mix.

[Lord Jim]

Any evidence of this alleged liberal bias in the facts and analysis?

Well...

We have no idea what criteria was used to chose which statements would be included...

It would be easy to pad them with non-controversial statements to increase their "honest or mostly honest" numbers...

Look, I have no problem with the idea that Trump and Carson emerged as the most prolific prevaricators...

That's exactly what I would expect...

It's the level of "honesty" that Obama and Slick Hillie are being credited with that I have issues with...

[Scooter]

We have no idea what criteria was used to chose which statements would be included...

It would be easy to pad them with non-controversial statements to increase their "honest or mostly honest" numbers...

Did you even attempt to find out before taking this sideswipe at results you doubt simply because you don't like them? Did any conservative commentator? Of course you didn't, and neither did they, because it's much easier to lob accusations of bias than it is to actually attempt to substantiate them.

[rubato]

No one appears able to disprove any of the flood of lies from the Repuglicans. Or even willing to try.


Cry
Cry
Cry,
that's all I want you to do.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Did you even attempt to find out before taking this sideswipe at results you doubt simply because you don't like them?

No, I did not...

Do you have a link to the list of specific quotes that were used to compile these "statistics" ?

If so, I'll be happy to look at it...

Afterall, it is the person who is making the affirmative case for who is and who is not the most "dishonest" that has the burden of proof...

I'd love to take a look at the quotes they used to compile their "proof"...

[Long Run]

And, seriously, the first clue as to the validity of this truthfulness study is right at the bottom/top of the list -- slick Willie is the most honest politician.

[Scooter]

Do you have a link to the list of specific quotes that were used to compile these "statistics" ?

If you click on the link on the OP, then on the link for each person where it appears in the article, you get the true, mainly true, etc. categories, each of which is a link to the list of quotes included therein.

[Lord Jim]

And, seriously, the first clue as to the validity of this truthfulness study is right at the bottom/top of the list -- slick Willie is the most honest politician.

There's a reason for that; they graded him on a curve...

They only counted his statements since 2007...

we’ve continued checking the public statements of Bill Clinton since 2007;

So I guess he hasn't claimed not to have sex with any women since 2007...

I don't have the time to go through it exhaustively, but at a glance, for Hillary in the "pants on fire" "false" and "mostly false" categories, I don't see her story about trying to enlist in the marines in the mid-seventies, or that howler about how she turned $1000 into $100,000 investing in cattle futures based on what she read in The Wall Street Journal...

She also gets a lot of leeway in the "half true" category...one example:

"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland."

(She gave a speech at the University of Ulster in Belfast as First Lady in 1997...you'd think that would qualify as at least "mostly false"...)

There's an enormous amount of subjective judgement built into this...

[Scooter]

And, seriously, the first clue as to the validity of this truthfulness study is right at the bottom/top of the list -- slick Willie is the most honest politician.

There's a reason for that; they graded him on a curve...

They only counted his statements since 2007...

we’ve continued checking the public statements of Bill Clinton since 2007;

Which is what they've done for everyone, to the extent they exist, presumably.

If you want them to go back further and enumerate all the whoppers that Jeb Bush told about Terri Schiavo, just to pick one topic, then I suppose it could be done, but unless you are going to give them infinite resources to do it, they had to begin somewhere, and the time at which they began compiling the lists makes as much sense as any other.

I don't have the time to go through it exhaustively

Of course you don't, because then cherry picking, you know, not as easy.

I don't see her story about trying to enlist in the marines in the mid-seventies, or that howler about how she turned $1000 into $100,000 investing in cattle futures based on what she read in The Wall Street Journal...

Pre-2007 I am assuming. She isn't the only one to have a past history, you know. If we wanted to look for outrageous statements others made in the 1990s, I'm sure there would be plenty of fodder.

[Fafhrd]

A quick look at the party affiliation of the named individuals tells you all you need to know about this "study."

Leftist garbage.

Who decided which statements to rate, and how to rate them, means much.

I assume the perpetrator of this--thing--is a liberal, too. But Republican hatred of the current President is such that in Louisiana, nearly a third of the people blame him for the mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (which happened three years before he was sworn into office), that it appears that they will say or do anything to ensure that hatred is turned into votes next November.

[rubato]

Obama was the most often fact-checked by a wide margin.

follow the link:

All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others.

By ANGIE DROBNIC HOLANDEC. 11, 2015


Washington — I’m a political fact-checker, which is usually an automatic conversation starter at parties. These days, I get two questions repeatedly: “Is it worse than it’s ever been?” and “What’s up with Donald Trump?”

I’ve been fact-checking since 2007, when The Tampa Bay Times founded PolitiFact as a new way to cover elections. We don’t check absolutely everything a candidate says, but focus on what catches our eye as significant, newsworthy or potentially influential. Our ratings are also not intended to be statistically representative but to show trends over time.

Donald J. Trump’s record on truth and accuracy is astonishingly poor. So far, we’ve fact-checked more than 70 Trump statements and rated fully three-quarters of them as Mostly False, False or “Pants on Fire” (we reserve this last designation for a claim that is not only inaccurate but also ridiculous). We haven’t checked the former neurosurgeon Ben Carson as often as Mr. Trump, but by the percentages Mr. Carson actually fares worse.

Carly Fiorina, another candidate in the Republican race who’s never held elective office, does slightly better on the Truth-O-Meter (which I sometimes feel the need to remind people is not an actual scientific instrument): Half of the statements we’ve checked have proved Mostly False or worse.

Most of the professional politicians we fact-check don’t reach these depths of inaccuracy. They tend to choose their words more carefully.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, for example, has ratings of Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire at the 40 percent mark (out of a sizable 117 statements checked). The former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s negative ratings are at 32 percent out of 71 statements checked, a percentage matched by two other Republican contenders, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Senator Rand Paul.

In the Democratic race, Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are evenly matched at 28 percent (based on 43 checks of Mr. Sanders and 140 checks of Mrs. Clinton). Outside of the primary campaign, we’ve continued checking the public statements of Bill Clinton since 2007; he comes out slightly ahead of President Obama in his truth-telling track record.
Continue reading the main story
Falsehood Face-Off

Statements since 2007 by presidential candidates (and some current and former officeholders) ranked from most dishonest over all to least dishonest, as fact-checked by PolitiFact. “Pants on Fire” refers to the most egregious falsehoods.


Too few statements have been fact-checked to include Jim Gilmore, George E. Pataki and George W. Bush. The number of statements analyzed varies for each person. Some bars total more or less than 100% because of rounding.
Source: PolitiFact

By Bill Marsh/The New York Times

The president has the distinction of being the most fact-checked person by PolitiFact — by a wide margin, with a whopping 569 statements checked. We’ve rated nine of those Pants on Fire.

Even though we’re in the midst of a presidential campaign full of falsehoods and misstatements, I see cause for optimism. Some politicians have responded to fact-checking journalism by vetting their prepared comments more carefully and giving their campaign ads extra scrutiny.

More important, I see accurate information becoming more available and easier for voters to find. By that measure, things are pretty good.

Mr. Trump’s inaccurate statements, for example, have garnered masses of coverage. His claim that he saw “thousands of people” in New Jersey cheering the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, grabbed headlines but the stories were about the rebuttals.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

When Ms. Fiorina mischaracterized a video about Planned Parenthood during an early debate, it was a significant part of the post-debate coverage, while Mrs. Clinton’s sometimes misleading statements about her email accounts have been generating close, in-depth scrutiny for most of 2015.

Today’s TV journalists — anchors like Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper and George Stephanopoulos — have picked up the torch of fact-checking and now grill candidates on issues of accuracy during live interviews. Most voters don’t think it’s biased to question people about whether their seemingly fact-based statements are accurate. Research published earlier this year by the American Press Institute showed that more than eight in 10 Americans have a positive view of political fact-checking.

In fact, journalists regularly tell me their media organizations have started highlighting fact-checking in their reporting because so many people click on fact-checking stories after a debate or high-profile news event. Many readers now want fact-checking as part of traditional news stories as well; they will vocally complain to ombudsmen and readers’ representatives when they see news stories repeating discredited factual claims.

That’s not to say that fact-checking is a cure-all. Partisan audiences will savage fact-checks that contradict their views, and that’s true of both the right and the left. But “truthiness” can’t survive indefinitely in a fact-free vacuum.

If Mr. Trump and his fans saw video of thousands of people cheering in New Jersey, why has no one brought it forward yet? Because it doesn’t exist.

Fact-checking’s methodology emphasizes the issue at hand and facts on the ground. Politicians can either make their case or they can’t. Candidates’ fans may complain about press bias, but my impression is that less partisan voters pay a lot of attention to these media moments, especially when elections are close and decided by a few percentage points. Trust and integrity are still crucial assets for a politician.

Contrary to the prophecies that truth in politics is doomed, I’m encouraged by the effect that fact-checking is having. When friends conclude despondently that the truth doesn’t matter, I remind them that people haven’t started voting yet. I don’t take current polls too seriously because data suggests that most people don’t settle on a candidate until much closer to casting their vote.

In the end, it’s the voters who will punish or reward candidates for what they’ve said on the campaign trail. I’m confident that Americans have the information they need to help them choose wisely.

Angie Drobnic Holan is the editor of PolitiFact, a political fact-checking website.

[Lord Jim]

Obama was the most often fact-checked by a wide margin.

Which of course also provides the greatest opportunity to "pad" the quotes with non-controversial statements and thus reduce his dishonesty rating...

[Joe Guy]

...(which I sometimes feel the need to remind people is not an actual scientific instrument)....

Q: Why would a scientist use a non-scientific instrument?

A: To support a non-truth.

[Scooter]

Obama was the most often fact-checked by a wide margin.

Which of course also provides the greatest opportunity to "pad" the quotes with non-controversial statements and thus reduce his dishonesty rating...

Once again, you had the opportunity to review which statements were included, but chose instead to post this sideswipe without bothering to put in the effort to see if it is supported. You also had the opportunity to review the methodology they purport to use and see if practice conforms to principle. But that was much harder than accusing them of selection bias without bothering to demonstrate it.