Politifact is Select-the-facts

Last year about this time I wrote that Politifact and other so-called fact checkers are as unreliable as the average news agency. Yet they are far worse because they portray themselves as objective and scientific (with their little "truth-meters") when this is far from the case.

Two articles from The Federalist analyzing Politifact support my contention. The analyses are devastating. Just as I said, selection bias is a major problem (among other things).

Here and here.

Media Narrative Chart

PolitiFraud

We need a name for the so-called "PolitiFact."  PolitiFraud?  PolitiCrap?

I'm not a fan of the "Fact Check" sites. They have an air of "being the last word" and of being objective, but in my experience they are just as unreliable as any news source and far from objective.
Here is one of many examples about Ted Cruz where it's claimed that he said something false. Give it a quick read.  Now note that most statements by Cruz on PolitiFraud are rendered "false."  Could it be that they only focus on some statements and not others?  Could it also be that they are rigging the game with "degrees of truth", whatever that means?

First, in a story about Reagan and Cruz where there is no mention of Clinton, why feel the need to point out that blacks did better under a Democrat? While true--and fair game for politicians to use--that doesn't have the air of objectivity about the particular facts at hand.

Second, while it's fair game to point how how (e.g.) the economy did under a president, that alone tells us nothing about to what extent the policies of the president played a role. Presidents inherit the regulations of predecessors as well as whomever happens to be in Congress, etc. So Cruz is guilty of this fallacy, but then again, so is pretty much every politician I can think of.

Third, when I first looked at their story, what struck me is why they didn't mention why they first said "true." What was it that made them say true in the first place?  They don't say.  That raises a red flag.

I can only speculate since the story has been redacted but here is what I think was the case.
They decided in the second story to use the adjusted income based on inflation in 2014 dollars. (Click on the word "Black" on the chart they provide and you'll see what I'm talking about.)  That seems to me even more misleading. (Why not use the 1988 adjusted income according to inflation? That would tell you how much real earning power was acquired during the 8 years.)

It looks like Cruz is simply using the real time dollars in 1980 and 1988. In 1980 the median income was 10,764; in 1988 it was 16,407 (so actually over $5000 and closer to $6000). If you took the mean income it's an increase of c.$8500 to $10,000 depending if you go with real time or adjusted to 2014 dollars.

So, unless I'm wrong about where the stats are coming from, a more accurate story would have been to clarify why they said true and then note that it depends on whether you are looking at current dollars or dollars adjusted for inflation from 2014.  Again, why use adjusted figures when that's even more misleading?  This appears to be a very underhanded way to say that he was asserting something false.

Related.

Who's the Media Watchdog's Watchdog?

On NPR this afternoon (paraphrase):

According to the Founders, the media is to be the watchdog of politics.  But who watches over the media?  Who is the media's watchdog?  [NPR's] On the Media, that's who.

But, as journalists are want to say, this begs the question: who watches over the media's watchdog?

Me.

Who's Checking the Fact Checkers?

A Clinton News Network Falsehood

Andrew McCarthy has recently written on the falsehood (and outright lying) perpetuated by the Obama administration that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event in reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

But let us not forget another falsehood perpetuated by Obama, Candy Crowley, and to this day still defended by CNN here.  To recount the facts, in a very important moment in a debate between Romney and Obama, Romney claimed that Obama did not say the day after the attack that it was a terrorist attack as Obama claimed in the debate.  (Rather, the Obama administration continued to insinuate that it was a spontaneous attack precipitated by a video which we know to be false; it took two weeks to call it an act of terror according to Romney.)  Candy Crowley then, in a shameful display of partisanship, inserted herself into the debate defending Obama saying that the transcript does affirm that Obama called it an act of terror and that Romney was wrong.  Well, now it's two against one and Romney is flummoxed before the national audience and does not know what to say.  Then the conversation gets diverted.  This was a devastating part of the debate for Romney and victory for Obama thanks to Candy Crowley.

So what did Obama actually say?  Here is CNN from the second link above:

The Media Plague

The Plague:

"Two cuts with the scalpel in the form of a cross and the glands discharged a mixture of pus and blood.  The patients bled, in agony.  Dark patches appeared on the belly and the legs, a lymph node would cease to suppurate, then it swelled up again. More often than not, the patient died, with an appalling smell about him."
"The press, which had had so much to say about the business of the [plague of infected] rats, fell silent.  This is because rats die in the street and people in their bedrooms; and newspapers are only concerned with the street."

Camus is a careful observer here.  The press is concerned with the streets and not with the bedroom, or more literally, with the soul.  The press is generally concerned with the social and political.  The solutions to problems thus tend to be structural.  Hence (for example) the ubiquitous claims of structural racism (which is rarely defined).

On the conservative understanding, the problems start with the soul.  The main root of societal dysfunction stems from individual choice.  No doubt, structural changes (e.g. changes in law) can have a positive effect on the soul and thus society more generally, but the structural cause is secondary and not primary.  The primary cause of societal ills starts in the bedroom.  And so the press tends to focus our attention on surface solutions (such as changes in laws.)

If one wants to change society for the better, one needs to read more than the news and politics. Moreover, one needs to do more than read.  One needs to embark on soul formation.

How Biased is the Media? A Freakonomics Interview

Tim Groseclose answers questions about his research on media bias here.  By my lights what he says below is plausible and interesting.

Excerpt:

Q. Why does liberal media bias exist in the first place? What would you suggest as a way that a) journalists could be more aware of their own bias and limit it in their reporting; or b) the profession of journalism could attract a more unbiased (or merely more representative) cohort? –Jack

A. The main reason why bias exists, I believe, is simply that newsrooms are filled overwhelmingly with liberals. Here’s the most important fact to know, if you want to understand media bias: If you poll Washington correspondents and ask “Who’d you vote for last election?”, about 93% will say the Democrat.

Why are newsrooms so liberal? I don’t know, except that I suspect that it’s mainly self-selection. I believe that there is something in the DNA of liberals that makes them want to pursue careers like journalism, academia, and the arts.

A manager or owner of a media outlet could try to counteract this by trying to hire more conservatives, but he will have a hard time trying to find conservatives who want to be journalists. He’ll either have to pay conservative journalists more or be willing to hire conservative journalists who are not as good at reporting as liberal journalists. It’s a hard problem for a news-outlet manager to solve. I basically believe we’re in an equilibrium  – that liberal bias is basically here to stay.

How can journalists be aware of their own biases?  One way is to read Chapter 11 of my book, “The Anti-Newsroom, Washington, County, Utah.”  In the chapter I search for a place that votes the opposite of a newsroom – 93-7 for the Republican. It’s basically impossible to find such a county, but one that comes close is Washington County. I interview lots of people in the county to give the reader a sense of what political views in the anti-newsroom are like.  If journalists think about how conservative, and maybe even strange, views are in the anti-newsroom, they may begin to realize how liberal, and maybe even strange, views are in actual newsrooms.

And if a journalist is really serious about understanding his or her own biases, he or she could visit Washington County, Utah.  One of its residents, Tom Seegmiller, has agreed to host such journalists.  Seegmiller is the owner of Dixie Gun and Fish and the Locker Room, an athletic supply store. If such journalists are interested, they should contact Seegmiller at one of his two businesses. Seegmiller is even willing to take such journalists to church with him. And if they desire, Seegmiller is willing to take such journalists hunting with him.

Media Bias Aids Democrats by About 8-10% Points

That is the claim in a book by political science and economics professor Tim Groseclose.  To non-liberals it is obvious that there is a liberal slant in the mainstream media--the titles of stories, the stories chosen to be reported on, the questions asked (and not asked), and so on belies the fact that there is significant bias (not to mention polls of journalists on which party they favor).  Liberals will often go to great lengths to deny the bias, since for many of them it's hard to see bias in a piece of journalism about which they wholeheartedly agree.

Groseclose not only supports the view that there is such bias with his research but goes on to make the claim (about which he says he was initially skeptical) that the evidence suggests the bias significantly skews voter results to the left by almost 8-10% (which is enough to tip most elections).  If the bias were eliminated, he says, the U.S. would look like Texas (on the PQ scale which he explains below).  As he remarks, "If you want to change elections, become a journalist not a professor."

He discusses his methodology in this video (he talks for about 35 minutes and then answers questions):