Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Non-Partisan FactCheck.org? Not Quite
I have seen repeated MSM references to FactCheck.org this election cycle as a non-partisan organization, most recently on a CNN blog attacking Obama's comments on John McCain's 100-years pledge with a bit of extra gusto. So I thought I better do a little fact checking on FactCheck myself. They say:
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in
Advertisement
Comments (15)
TPM doesn't like me - forgive me if this has already been cover - here's the rest of my blog:
I have seen repeated MSM references to FactCheck.org this election cycle as a non-partisan organization, most recently on a CNN blog attacking Obama's comments on John McCain's 100-years pledge with a bit of extra gusto. So I thought I better do a little fact checking on FactCheck myself. They say:
The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
It sounds nice enough, but the problem is it's funding couldn't come from a more partisan source. Despite a lengthy list of political donations, Leonore Annenberg, the Trustee of the foundation, and the late Walter Annenberg have never made a donation do a democratic candidate. Not ever. Here's the list of donations: (You can search for yourself here)
Please feel free to advise those media outlets that refer to this group as non-partisan that they are funded by a foundation created by a man that gave $5000 to the California Republican Party in 2000. Now the foundation which funds this non-partisan organization is run by his Leonore Annenberg, who is worth $2 billion - but she can't spare a Democrat a dime.
April 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
With so many people alleging bias at so many sources, where will this nonsense never end? Is it not possible to be both a Republican donor and also create a non-partisan (multi-partisan?) panel of people to fact check claims and news items?
Not possible?
Do you have a list of fact check results that show clear bias?
April 18, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
let me change that to where will this nonsense ever end?
April 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sentence works either way.
April 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do you have a list of fact check results that show clear bias?"
Not the results pre se but the "facts "they choose to check made me suspicious years ago.
April 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless there is some specific reason to start calling their nonpartisan nature into question, I really think factcheck should be judged not on their funding sources but rather on their behavior. I have never seen factcheck to intentionally favor Republicans over Democrats.
I do personally think their view of the correct interpretation of McCain's "100 years" comments is incorrect, but while I might disagree with their stance there I don't see any reason to view it as partisan.
April 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree almost completely. I'll go a step further, however, and say that I think their view of McCain's "100 years" comment is exactly how I interpreted it. I know that's not the popular thing to say around here, but it's the way I understood it regardless.
April 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Don't let the cynics at TPM tell you any differently either. Fact check is always checking on Obama and they very seldom check on anything Hillary says. They also give TPM a pass. I've been thinking of doing a TPM watch and creating a web site for fact checking all of the incredibly biased things that get posted here. This site is so biased. Most of the cynics are already commenting here, too. They smell out reasonable comments like yours and hold them up to ridicule. I just hate them.
April 18, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now the foundation which funds this non-partisan organization is run by his Leonore Annenberg, who is worth $2 billion - but she can't spare a Democrat a dime."
Oh please. Ms. Annenberg does not "run" the Annenberg Center. You looked through the site and didn't notice that Ms. Annenberg is nowhere listed as a director or staffer?
April 18, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The foundation...[subordinate clause]...is run by Leonore Annenberg...[continue run-on sentence written in haste]"
Anyways, methinks the fact that the bias is subtle is the whole point. The madness will never end as long as the US media continues its "objectivity" charade.
All political speech is biased - to pretend otherwise is make-believe. I have no problem considering media matters a biased organization either.
April 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a personal experience with the Director of factcheck.org which lead me to question their neutrality/objectivity.
I spoke with him directly last month asking why they had not no follow up reporting on the NAFTA issue since their published latest update failed to mention info from the Canadian press making it clear that further probing was being pressed by the Canadians themselves. The involvement of Canadian US Ambassador (Wilson) was being questioned. When I asked about why they hadn't provided this update, which I'd found quite easily myself, the Director patronizingly suggested that I obviously didn't "understand how their site worked" and said he wasn't aware of any new information.
I checked periodically for several days, then sent a snarky e-mail complaining they still hadn't updated with the latest public disclosures in the Canadian press. After reading your post today, I checked again and noticed today that the record has been amended.
My conclusion at the time was that the fact-checking on factcheck.or is skewed in many subtle and not-so subtle ways. Your post confirmed my belief.
April 18, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll accept that there might be subtle bias, and a bias of omission seems like the most obvious kind to have. Unfortunately, it's also the hardest to prove. However, so far I'm not aware of any factual errors on the site, which does count for something at least.
That doesn't mean you can't be upset about biases of omission, of course.
April 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Secret Ruling Cabal (SRC) controls factcheck.com. We know that this is a fact because the SRC controls everything. Since factcheck.com is a thing, it follows, ergo, that it is a fact that the SRC controls factcheck.com. The fact that this fact cannot be found on factcheck.com confirms that factcheck.com is not only not factual but in fact counterfactual. It is also a fact that the SRC opposes Obama because he is the Supreme Threat to the Status Quo (STSQ). Since SRC controls factcheck.com, it follows ergo that factcheck.com is anti-Obama. Since factcheck.com is countrerfactual and anti-Obama, it follows that everything that factcheck.com says is a fact about Obama is in fact not a fact but rather a counterfact. I could go on like this, but I'm bored already.
April 18, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have found factcheck.org to be very superficial and often flimsy. NAFTA was one example, but there are many more.
April 18, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, very biased, here is the email I sent to their editor on April 5th. I no longer take them seriously.
Dear FactCheck,
I used to rely on factcheck.org emails and postings to clarify important issues that were being misreported in the media. However, I can no longer in good conscience do so. Over the past several months, your "fact checking" has been biased in several very important ways. Let me list some...
First, what you choose to fact check shows a clear bias in favor of Senator Clinton. For example, in the now wide spread issue of her lies about her Bosnia experience, the ONLY thing you had to say was, "We find some exaggerations in Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience." Then specifically, " We can’t speak to what may or may not have happened on the military transport that delivered Clinton to Bosnia." Clear video evidence shows that she has been LYING, not "exaggerating" for months about this issue. When this broke in the main stream media, did you issue an update, or clarification of your fact checking? No, it still reads as above on the website.
Second, you made no mention about the smearing of Rev. Wright. The wide spread video clips were clearly edited to be inflammatory and misrepresent the content of his sermons, particularly when he was quoting other sources rather than making his own statements. Was there any fact checking from you on this, perhaps the most important issue of the democratic primary? Nope, not a mention. You were complicit in the misrepresentations.
Third is NAFTA-gate. News had broken that the Clinton campaign had had direct communications with the Canadian government, and now we know that Mark Penn is appeasing and lobbying for the Columbian government. Have you released a follow-up and clarification? Nope.
Fourth, "Did Clinton Darken Obama's Skin?" Yes, the ad did. You make a judgement in favor of Clinton's intent, though you have no evidence to suggest it was not motivated to make him look blacker and scarier. In fact, you claim it is a page right out of a dirt politics handbook which states, when going negative, make it black and scary. The only honest fact check answer is, "Yes, they did, and it may have been ill intended."
Fifth, "Obama's Oil Spill" Give me a break... This is some of the most biased fact checking I have ever seen. While your actual "facts" are correct, how you chose to frame them and what you choose not to say are very biased and misleading. There is dishonesty in that.
I am sorry, but your emails and web site read just like the Clinton campaign talking points. I am not sure why your group has chosen to be so pro-Clinton, but it is clear you have. If you want to do some real fact check work and reporting, perhaps you should fact check the daily conference call of the Clinton campaign.
Why don't you fact check Clinton's concern for the rights off all voters...
- "Seat FL and MI" "Obama is trying to disenfranchise FL and MI"
- "Obama doesn't want any more contests to count"
Against her previous statements?
- "I know and agree that FL and MI are meaningless and the votes don't and shouldn't count"
- "This thing will be wrapped up by Super Tuesday"
- "Caucus states shouldn't count"
- "Traditionally red states shouldn't count"
I really cannot stress enough how truly disappointed I am in your organization. Like PBS and NPR, I have held you to a higher standard, the highest standard, the public trust standard. You have failed. Your bias is clear and I can no longer trust the "truth" of your fact checking.
Sincerely,
Bdub
April 18, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment