The New Republic - "Politifact Goes Off The Deep End"- Calls Out Politifact's Defense Of Vouchercare

[TomCADem]

Under Politifact's logic, I guess if I run over my neighbor's cat Fluffy, but replace it with a dog I find at the pound, which I name Fluffy, then I have not really killed my neighbor's cat.

The New Republic, which is not exactly the most liberal magazine around, provides this devastating critique of Politifact's analysis of a Democratic ad attacking Republicans for trying to end Medicare:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/87146/politifact-goes-the-deep-end

Political reporters have certain ideological biases. Some of them tilt leftward -- for instance, a tendency to view social conservatives as ignorant and bigoted. But other tilt rightward, such as support for free trade, and cuts to entitlement programs. Reporters almost reflexively view cuts to Social Security and Medicare as necessary, advocates of said policies as brave, and opponents as demagogic fear-mongers.

That is the context in which to understand Politifact's "Pants on Fire" rating of a whimisical Democratic ad assailing Republicans for approving Paul Ryan's plan to phase out Medicare. Politifact's analysis is a pastiche of non-sequiturs, taking of the GOP's side in contested questions of values, and bending over backward to interpret the ad in the most hostile possible light.

* * *
1. Politifact: "to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration. All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program’s budget would increase every year."

Republicans voted to transform Medicare from an open-ended commitment to cover medical care for the elderly into a defined contribution would start at less than the value of the current program and rapidly shrink as a percentage of the cost of a health insurance plan. Whether this constitutes ending Medicare is, of course, a matter of debate. Democrats argue, sensibly enough in my view, that ending the programs basic role in guaranteeing health care and turning it into a limited subsidy toward the purchase of private insurance would turn it into something other than what it has been its entire existence. I suppose one could argue that it would similar enough to the current program that it cannot be called an end to Medicare, but this is a highly disputable notion.

Of course, this just shows that even the so-called fact checkers are simply repeating the false equivalencies, and he-said, she said analysis that dominates journalism today, which such fact checkers were intended to combat. Now, there is no truth. Instead, there are just viewpoints, and so long as someone offers and opposite viewpoint, then the truth simply becomes a matter of talking points and opinions in today's media environment.

[RandomThoughts]

1. There is a way to understand truths, even if perspective is part of everything..

Even if it is built off of some learning, if it also makes sense, and feels right, after much thought on the topic, then it is more then subjective, but what you choose to believe and feel.

In a recent post I comment on a part of a book I was thinking on for years, there are other things I did not think on very long, becuase they did not make sense, nor feel right.

[LooseWilly]

2. "Now, there is no truth... there are just viewpoints" Uhh, if New Republic called them...

doesn't that mean that "journalism today" is doing it's job? The bullshit of one reporter as passed through the organization by whatever number of editors... is to be expected really. Look at the Yellow Journalism of Hearst and his ilk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) or look at the SF Examiner or the NY Post...

The fact is, there was a "main stream media" outlet that called bullshit... and that's about all you can hope for unless you get dictatorial control over the process in order to make it exactly what you want from the get-go...

[DJ13]

3. In the back of my head I've long wondered

.... if supposedly neutral "facts" groups like Politifact and Factchecker were honest, or if they were created to serve a purpose in someones long range conservative plan.

Knowing that certain elements on the conservative side are capable of launching plans expected to take decades to fulfill (think Grover Norquist), its not a totally crazy idea to think that setting up groups to act as THE arbitrator in determining the honesty of our political system, to mold public opinion, would be a highly desirable goal for certain conservatives.

[pansypoo53219]

4. no shit.

i smelled the shit on politifact on this baby.