4 ms·

That's why it was "mostly false" instead of "false". Technically, he told the truth. But the way he wants to spin it is false.

pharrington 10y ago
This is a good illustration of the problem of purported fact checking organizations using the supposed fact check actually as a headline for political/social commentary. If the product you're selling is commentary, don't claim you are a fact checking service.
empressplay 10y ago
This is not fact-checking, this is opining.
- smhost 10y ago
  No, it's neither. It's analyzing the consistency between the different levels of narrative. Meaning and understanding don't happen merely at the level of denotation. This is why we need to listen to the advice of poets.
rdtsc 10y ago
> Technically, he told the truth. Isn't that the problem at hand? Layering this seemingly objective "fact" checking on top of a political statements ("the way he wants to spin it"). Then picking a side. If they don't like the side then "technically" true is not enough, now the fact checker has to agree with the politics and the intent to mark it as "true". I am pretty sure if Clinton or Obama made that statement there would be very little discussion in marking it as "true" and claiming "yeah it is technically true, what she/he might have implied is up to interpretation, but statement on its own is a fact".
- wilg 10y ago
  Here's a list of Obama's "Mostly Falses": http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/stateme... They seem right in line tonally with this one from Trump.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Yes. Isolated facts in and of themselves, without considering either the narrative into which they are embedded, or the world-views they invoke in recipients of those messages, are at best only a part of the much larger picture. This is why fact-checking, at the very least alone, is not a total solution.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

pharrington 10y ago

This is a good illustration of the problem of purported fact checking organizations using the supposed fact check actually as a headline for political/social commentary. If the product you're selling is commentary, don't claim you are a fact checking service.

empressplay 10y ago

This is not fact-checking, this is opining.

smhost 10y ago
No, it's neither. It's analyzing the consistency between the different levels of narrative. Meaning and understanding don't happen merely at the level of denotation. This is why we need to listen to the advice of poets.

rdtsc 10y ago

> Technically, he told the truth. Isn't that the problem at hand? Layering this seemingly objective "fact" checking on top of a political statements ("the way he wants to spin it"). Then picking a side. If they don't like the side then "technically" true is not enough, now the fact checker has to agree with the politics and the intent to mark it as "true". I am pretty sure if Clinton or Obama made that statement there would be very little discussion in marking it as "true" and claiming "yeah it is technically true, what she/he might have implied is up to interpretation, but statement on its own is a fact".

wilg 10y ago
Here's a list of Obama's "Mostly Falses": http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/stateme... They seem right in line tonally with this one from Trump.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Yes. Isolated facts in and of themselves, without considering either the narrative into which they are embedded, or the world-views they invoke in recipients of those messages, are at best only a part of the much larger picture. This is why fact-checking, at the very least alone, is not a total solution.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]