Politihacks

Looks like the clowns at Politifact are following DougJ’s advice and just going full wingnut:

Politifact—the self-anointed fact checkers—grade this statement from the President speech tonight as “half-true:”

    “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.”

This is not half true or two-thirds true. It is just true.

So why, I ask you, why do they go where they go? Because of this:

    In his remarks, Obama described the damage to the economy, including losing millions of jobs “before our policies were in full effect.” Then he describe [sic!] the subsequent job increases, essentially taking credit for the job growth. But labor economists tell us that no mayor or governor or president deserves all the claim or all the credit for changes in employment.

Really? That’s it? That makes the fact not a fact? I’ve seen some very useful work by these folks, but between this and this, Politifact just can’t be trusted. Full stop.

Three million jobs were created, but according to the “fact-checkers,” they don’t exist because… Well, I have no idea.

Straight up pathetic. Those jobs were created, they were created under Obama’s time in office. It’s that simple. It’s 100% true. Nothing about the statement that three million jobs being created in 22 months is inaccurate- he never even claimed he created them.

Just fucking worthless.

*** Update ***

From the comments:

Christ, he didn’t even say he created 3 million jobs. He said “businesses” have.

Tom Brady: The Patriots won last week to go to the Super Bowl.

Politifact: Half-true. Tom Brady shouldn’t get all the credit for the Patriots win.

They are just clowns. They aren’t concerned with facts at all- they are concerned with their own relevance and status as fact-checkers.

56 replies
  1. 1
    General Stuck says:

    Politifact is exceeding its own mandate, and in this case confuses wonky facts with pertinent political perceptions to make some half ass irrelevant qualification.

  2. 2
    Zam says:

    Fine then. Why even bother electing a president since clearly he can do no good its up to all those masses of mayors to fix things. Or is this just because he’s a democrat and the president will be the greatest man in the land once Newt turns it back into a true White House?

  3. 3
    lkt says:

    Funny thing is, according to the statement that they used to evaluate the President’s claim, he didn’t even take credit for the creation of the jobs:

    In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

  4. 4
    Mark S. says:

    Christ, he didn’t even say he created 3 million jobs. He said “businesses” have.

    Tom Brady: The Patriots won last week to go to the Super Bowl.

    Politifact: Half-true. Tom Brady shouldn’t get all the credit for the Patriots win.

  5. 5
    Hill Dweller says:

    Both sides!

  6. 6
    DCLaw1 says:

    Today was such a beautiful day, and I got so much done.

    POLITIFACT: We rate this statement “half-true.” While there is some evidence to support the assertion that today was a beautiful day and you got so much done, Independent Think Tank Experts told Politifact that beautiful days are not strongly correlated, as a statistical matter, with people getting things done.

  7. 7
    trex says:

    Also, Obama had nothing to do with eliminating bin Laden, it was all Seal Team Six really taking initiative on one of their weekends off. And the recent record profits in the private sector? All due to Global Cooling, the Ayn Rand movie, and tricorne hats.

  8. 8

    Maybe the statement “businesses have created more than three million jobs” is only “half-true” because the businesses couldn’t have done it without the government’s help.

    Because the private sector never created a single job.

    Wait a sec, I have my wingnut talking points sheet upside down.

  9. 9
    Quinn says:

    Need to make sure the “both sides do it” line is legitimized…

    http://www.politifact.com/pers.....tatements/

    fair and balanced n stuff

  10. 10
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    I think they were trustworthy once, or at least, not the blatant self-parody they are now. My guess is that someone gave them a whiff of MSM respectability and told them that to get more, they’d have to do the ‘both sides’ dance. And they did.

    I think there’s a place for an entity like Politifact in the dialogue, but they’d have to be somewhat competent at distinguishing fact from fiction, and these guys haven’t shown they are.

  11. 11
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I look forward to their scoring as half-true all statements ever made by a politician about the American people, insofar as not all American people have identical histories and records of achievement. I myself have accomplished little, negating at least partway all platitudes about American greatness.

  12. 12
    RalfW says:

    They’ve fallen into the wingularity.

    And they seem to be linking it in there.

    Perhaps when the gravity crushes their brains, they won’t like it as much. How sad that day will be for some hand-wringers out there.

    But once they went over the lie of the year event horizon under their own power, I stopped caring.

  13. 13
    Redshift says:

    First qualification for being a fact-checker: a minimal understanding of what a “fact” is.

    Politifact, contrary to their name and the ratings they give out, clearly see themselves as being referees, not fact-checkers, and like all the other referees in the media, are easily swayed by boos from the home crowd.

    And by “home crowd,” I mean, of course, Republicans.

  14. 14
    Schlemizel says:

    You know, I was not thrilled with your SOTU comment that we don’t deserve a man like Obama. While I think he is a good man, a very smart man and the best we can hope for from a President in these days I think we deserve even better. Or, at least I did until I read this piece of shit from politibarf.

    I really wish we could divide the country along those lines from 2004 into America and Jesusland. It would take a while to relocate the residents of each nation that belonged in the other but when complete decent people could get the country we deserve & the residents of Jesusland could get the talabinical-third-world-shithole they deserve. And these assclowns could show them the way.

  15. 15
    Mark S. says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That’s a good point. It’s only half-true that the United States won WWII. Some Americans did very little towards the war effort.

  16. 16
    wasabi gasp says:

    Obama claims all credits. This is true fact.

  17. 17
    Satanicpanic says:

    We really don’t deserve Obama. I really hope we can have him another four years. It seems like almost every major institution is against what he’s trying to do. And politifact should change its name to PoliticizingFacts, because that’s all they do these days.

  18. 18
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mark S.:

    Some Americans did very little towards the war effort.

    For example, Prescott Bush and his cronies.

  19. 19
    Mark S. says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Another half-truth! They aided the war effort of the Germans.

  20. 20
    jl says:

    Worse still, in addition to the good point commenters made about the fact Politifact cannot even figure out how answer its own fricken question.

    They could not even be bothered to cherry pick a specific somebody they could label as an expert to address the question of whether this particular President is responsible.

    Noooooo. They lazily, and hilariously, said a class of experts had something to say about the issue in general.

    Lazy. Stupid. Funny. Empty. Full o’ fail. Egregious. Silly.

  21. 21
    Mark S. says:

    no mayor or governor or president deserves all the claim

    Blame? Acclaim? Ah, fuck it, we can’t afford editors.

  22. 22
    jl says:

    Senator Snort said that Newt’s proposed coal powered rocket plane could circle the earth in fifteen minutes, with zero pollution.

    Politifact says ‘half true’. Some say the earth is flat, and anyway, in context, Newt implied he was not talking about it circling the world.

  23. 23
    burnspbesq says:

    Maybe if Obama had taken a page from the Brady playbook (“I sucked but my teammates overcame my suckitude and we won”), Politifact would have given him some credit.

    What a waste of electrons and photons.

  24. 24
    hamletta says:

    I overslept and showed up for work late that one time, so American workers are not the greatest and most productive in the world.

    Sorry, guys.

  25. 25
    Redshift says:

    @jl:

    Noooooo. They lazily, and hilariously, said a class of experts had something to say about the issue in general.

    In other words, to refute something they claim the president just implied, they employ an assertion they themselves would label half-true at best if a politician said it.

  26. 26
    RadioOne says:

    Who cares? Is anybody besides us liberals actually reading Politifact? The day conservatives start taking Politifact seriously as a neutral arbitrator of the truth is the day I…

  27. 27
    jl says:

    @Redshift: yes, thank you.

  28. 28
    Lev says:

    I just chalk it up to there always being more money out there to validate the opinions of the powerful than there is to challenge them.

  29. 29
    DCLaw1 says:

    Politico rates this Balloon Juice post “pants on fire” because 12-point font.

  30. 30
    DCLaw1 says:

    Not “Politico,” Politifact. Goddammit stepped on my joke. Bed.

  31. 31
    jl says:

    BJ commenters said Tunch is fat.

    Tunch can be described as Rubenesque.

    But they implied by using the word ‘is’ that Tunch was entirely composed of fat.

    But many cat experts say that cats also contain fur and semi processed catfood, and dander, and other minor ingrediants.

    We have to rate this one, not true, pants on fire liar liar.

  32. 32
    wasabi gasp says:

    A leprechaun can’t catch a break.

  33. 33
    jl says:

    Our newspaper ad copy said that Politifact was the best fact checker in existence.

    This is tough one, and we have to admit a conflict of interest. But we are brave, and must make tough tough decisions. We decided to wade in for the benefit of our readers.

    Many grammarians say that was, the irst and third person singular past indicative of ‘be’ can be used to indicate a state that existed for a finite period at some past date. And this was clearly what was implied.

    So, probably… true. More than half true. That’s the ticket. We must of been the best on some some day or other, in the past.. sometime…

  34. 34
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @jl:

    Tunch is NOT “rubenesque”.

    Tunch is “zaftig”.

  35. 35
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    If someone were to set up “Politifactcheck”, submitting all of Bullshitifact’s claims to rigorous analysis, would the media hos pay attention? They’re just trolling liberals now for the lulz.

    in these days I think we deserve even better

    Yes, but… I think Charlie Pierce had a point when he said that a certain amount of arse-sitting combined with a certain amount of widespread teabagger pandemic meant that the broad ‘we’ sorta kinda deserved the teabagger fuckwits who won in 2010.

  36. 36
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Lev:

    That’s probably the best assessment of the situation I’ve read all day.

    In my time zone. This gives those east of say Denver plenty of time to top it.

  37. 37
    jl says:

    Mean people at a miserable lefty blog, that we are too dignified to name, say that Politifact is the worst fact checker in existence.

    Our spell checker says that ‘worst’ is often a typographical error for ‘wurst’, and this is probably the case here.

    But, ‘wurst’ refers to a sausage.

    Our verdict, not true.

    pantsonfire, nyah, nyah, nyah ha ha.

  38. 38
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @DCLaw1:

    If BJ had a WORKING EDIT BUTTON FUNCTION you wouldn’t have needed to post that apology, you could have just edited the original and made things right.

    Politifact rates this as a humongo nose, just because it’s that MuslimAtheist BJ site.

  39. 39
    Yutsano says:

    OT: Just because I feel like sharing, it’s RedKitteh’s birfday today! I imagine she’s been feted and is long past asleep, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

  40. 40
    middlewest says:

    They saw this coming from the next galaxy over. Politifact is pure self-satire now.

  41. 41
    jl says:

    Can Onion file an IP lawsuit? Thats what I wanna know.

  42. 42
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Well, I for one think that this wraps up your 2012 ”lie of the year” contest. Thank goodness we got that out of the way early.

  43. 43
    DCLaw1 says:

    Just thought I’d pop in to note: this could be some of the reason for Obama’s swagger tonight:

    http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com.....night-raid

  44. 44
    El Cid says:

    They totally lied when they introduced Obama as the President of the United States this evening because he has actually only been President for the last few years, whereas the U.S. has been around much longer than that and had other Presidents.

  45. 45
    Politifaux says:

    Politifact plays the, “But this is what Obama REALLY meant” card in another factcheck.

    Obama was correct when he said that “right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.” We think he may have overstated his administration’s role in achieving that, but not wildly so. We rate the claim Mostly True.

    This is because Obama said, “Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration…” — a point which Politifact does not even look at or ask anyone if it had an effect.

    Seems in the hurry to be the first up with a fact check, Politifact is taking shortcuts and trying to be mind readers.

  46. 46
    Calouste says:

    @Mark S.:

    Yes, the American involvement at Stalingrad really helped things turn around at the Eastern Front.

  47. 47
    cyd says:

    @Mark S.:

    It’s only half-true that the United States won WWII. Some Americans did very little towards the war effort.

    Actually, it is less than half-true that the US won WWII. The Russians did most of the heavy lifting.

  48. 48
    Captain Howdy says:

    They aren’t concerned with facts at all- they are concerned with their own relevance and status as fact-checkers.

    This is kind of non-sensical, but I don’t know whether it’s Mr Cole or Politifucked who has stopped making sense. If they were concerned with only relevance and status as fact-checkers, then their singular concern would be facts. How else would they maintain either?

  49. 49
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Captain Howdy:

    If they were concerned with only relevance and status as fact-checkers, then their singular concern would be facts. How else would they maintain either?

    Because once you are established in the media ecosystem as “a fact-checker” (which is a separate thing from actually checking facts) you can do whatever the fuck you want, just as Maverick McCain is a mavericky maverick in perpetuo.

  50. 50
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @cyd: They did most of the dying, too, from what I’ve read. Stalin wasn’t exactly one to care about the lives of the people under his command.

  51. 51
    Rafer Janders says:

    @Cluttered Mind:

    I don’t know how Politico will rate this, but 80% of the German casualties in WWII were inflicted by the Soviets. That means that all the other combatants COMBINED — the US, British, French, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Danes, Belgians, Dutch, Italians, Yugoslavs, Albanians and Greeks — only accounted for 20% of German casualties.

  52. 52
    Rafer Janders says:

    Also, too, the US only entered ground combat (as opposed to air and naval engagements) against German forces in early 1943, three and a half years after the war started. And that was in North Africa. It never faced a significant bulk of the German armed forces until D-Day, less than a year before the war ended.

  53. 53
    Heliopause says:

    First, forget about Politifact‘s recent controversies: functioning adults of modest intelligence should long ago have decided to ignore a site that includes a “Truth-o-Meter” and the category “Pants on Fire.” Questionable analyses aside, these people revealed themselves as intellectual bantamweights from the get-go.

    Second, I stumbled across another SOTU “fact-check” article (not Politifact) when I turned on the internet this morning, so out of curiosity I opened it up because SOTUs are usually chock full of anecdotes and sweeping generalizations that are rarely amenable to a meaningful fact-check. Sure enough, it subjected some of those sweeping generalizations to a predictable, muddle-headed, “balanced” analysis. It’s a waste of time, but if you’re curious here it is.

    With a few exceptions I try to avoid anything labeled “fact-check” anymore. It’s like a bright neon sign screaming, “this is not a genuine fact-check, it’s an idiot journalist’s version of reality.”

  54. 54
    Sean says:

    Shit, they fucking changed their teeny fucking minds, now the statement is ‘mostly true.’ Bitches got called on their bullshit, and pussied out this time. Maybe digging in their heels didn’t work out so well last time.

    I’d go slap the fuckers but they’re in Tampa, and that is too goddamned depressing.

  55. 55
  56. 56

    Fuck that. Michelle Obama was ranked as “half true” for saying that her husband “helped” military folks get expanded college aid.

    This is only half true – because Obama merely *voted* for the bill as a Senator! She made it *sound* like he’d signed the bill as *President*. She can’t go around saying he *helped* when he just *voted* for the bill and have it be accepted as *true*.

Comments are closed.