Is FactCheck.org biased?

[wtmusic]

I received an email touting FactCheck.org as an impartial way to get at the truth behind the slander/lies/distortions coming from both sides. Though there are plenty of articles hammering McCain's campaign, some which go after Obama's don't have a solid foundation. Example:

Hit the Brakes
September 3, 2008
An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

Summary
A new Obama ad targeted to Michigan voters says McCain 'refused to support loan guarantees for the auto industry.'

That was true, but it's not now – and it wasn't when this ad was made. Yet the ad doesn't mention McCain's changed position on government support for the carmakers.

Bottom line: though McCain might say he now supports loan guarantees, when it came down to action vs talk - he didn't. This is legit criticism. Also:

Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
<>
* She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
<>
* Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

FactCheck doesn't mention that Palin sought to have the librarian fired after her refusal to consider banning books (sounds like a demand to me). And is not saying "students should be allowed to debate both sides" of a topic which, in the realm of science, doesn't have two sides making creationism part of the curriculum?

[sharp_stick]

1. Fact Check is pretty good IMO

Not everything they find is going to fit what I want them to say but they back it up pretty well.

[dems_rightnow]

2. Same here, good site.

They always seem to be fair- and not afraid to take on either side's claims.

[salvorhardin]

3. They strive for accuracy and tend not to issue opinions when they don't have facts

Like the other poster said, they're pretty good.

From their About Us page:

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. 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.
http://www.factcheck.org/about

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. The Snips You Posted Show Them To Be Objective And Fair IMHO.

I've always considered them to be a quite good source, though no source is perfect. But in the examples you listed, in the spirit of objectivity and fairness, they did a good job.

[robcon]

5. Fact Check is TERRIFIC

Not a bit of bias. A real straight-shooter.

[wtmusic]

6. They contradict themselves

"An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them."

WTF? :shrug:

[robcon]

8. Makes sense to me.

They're saying that Obama claimed, contrary to fact, that McCain does not support loan guarantees.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Factcheck is as good as it gets. If someone is...

looking for perfection in anything relating to politics, have a fun time finding it.

If anyone is looking for a site to parrot their own views-- Factcheck isn't it.