5 ms·

Unfortunately, there is no real objective agreement on Politifact's impartiality either. Impartiality generally seems to be a very difficult subject. https://

Unfortunately, there is no real objective agreement on Politifact's impartiality either. Impartiality generally seems to be a very difficult subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_political_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_poli... PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.”

hobs 4y ago
Nothing you said here or Wikipedia says demonstrates Politifact is wrong, just that they find Republicans lie more. That's not a point of bias unless you can prove Republicans lie less.
- hbossy 4y ago
  It's more reasonable to assume that all politicians lie the same and "fact checkers" are biased against one party.
  - bildung 4y ago
    Why would you think that? It's clear that different political parties are driven by different value systems (more obviously in other countries than the US, but still), thus also quite plausable that those value systems differ in their judgement of the end justifying the means.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    That would probably your a priori assumption since that would be your motivation to do the study in the first place. But it's not some fundamental law of the universe, so you can't just count lies/total grouped by party and conclude bias. You have to prove that for the same claims politifact would rate Republican's worse and Democrats better or establish some kind of control. Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often.
    - knightofmars 4y ago
      >Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that Politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often. Agreed, the statements that Politifact chooses to cover are contentious and have high visibility. In the specific set of data points that were used to evaluate Politifact, a larger percentage of the statements made by Republicans are classified lies and more harshly (see article below from 2011). This proves nothing about the overall number of lies made by individuals within the Republican and Democrat parties. There are numerous ways this sort of situation within Politifact can come about even after excluding bias from Politifact. For example, a unique time period in which a small number of individuals who identify as Republicans are independently making more outrageous claims which skews the result. Or a time period in which a specific talking point (generally proven false) is being pushed as a narrative by a portion of a party but not a majority of the party (e.g., the 2020 election was stolen, or Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections). Point being, reaching the conclusion that Republicans lie more via Politifact or the findings of the original study is a fallacy. And reaching the conclusion that Politifact is biased is also a fallacy. The original article here: https://archive.ph/Drhw https://archive.ph/Drhw
  - secondhandle 4y ago
    If anything this viewpoint is unreasonable and forms the basis of an informal fallacy, among the lines of a false equivalence. You are claiming an equivalent outcome based on an oversimplification to one factor ("all politicians lie the same") and/or ignorance of the plethora of factors that separate (and yes, in some cases confound) both parties. I know plenty of Republicans who think Democrats lie more and I know plenty of Democrats who think Republicans lie more. But I wouldn't justify a false compromise through anecdotal evidence.
- lukas099 4y ago
  I think that the claim of left-wing bias in academia, news media, etc. is true, but not nearly as much as right-wingers say it is. I also don't find it hard to believe that Republicans have lied more often than Democrats in the past decade, but probably not as much as PolitFact says they do.
- StevePerkins 4y ago
  Isn't this the methodology used for claiming pretty much every form of systemic bias these days?
lkrubner 4y ago
If Republicans lie 3 times more often then Democrats, then PoltiFact is doing its job accurately.
- Clubber 4y ago
  Of course, if people are arguing which political party lies more, they are unknowingly confirming that both parties lie regularly and the entire system is corrupt. The "who lies more," is just a way to justify the corruption for one side or the other.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    You are making a big jump from "one politician lied this specific time" to "the whole system is corrupt." The conclusion does not follow from initial incident. Specific cases of specific politicians lying does not suggest that the whole system is corrupt. And that (the lack of systematic implications) remains true, even if politicians from one political party can be shown to lie more often than politicians from other political parties.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      Imagine if it were a person you know, perhaps personally, or a work colleague that lied to you on multiple occasions. Do you tend to trust those people once they've lied? Do you feel comfortable giving them money? Do you feel comfortable giving them power over you? Would you ever say, "Bob lied to me a few times, but he's ok because Fred lies a lot more." It's not a big jump at all, we've just grown so accustomed to it, it feels normal. Because it feels so normal, it's pretty stark evidence of total corruption. To think any differently is really putting your head in the sand, IMO, but I've been following politics for a long time.
      - lkrubner 4y ago
        Again, when a specific person lies, their personal trustworthiness is in doubt, but their lying does not raise systemic issues. Your attempt to generalize is not justified by any particular person lying.

hobs 4y ago

Nothing you said here or Wikipedia says demonstrates Politifact is wrong, just that they find Republicans lie more. That's not a point of bias unless you can prove Republicans lie less.

hbossy 4y ago
It's more reasonable to assume that all politicians lie the same and "fact checkers" are biased against one party.
- bildung 4y ago
  Why would you think that? It's clear that different political parties are driven by different value systems (more obviously in other countries than the US, but still), thus also quite plausable that those value systems differ in their judgement of the end justifying the means.
- Spivak 4y ago
  That would probably your a priori assumption since that would be your motivation to do the study in the first place. But it's not some fundamental law of the universe, so you can't just count lies/total grouped by party and conclude bias. You have to prove that for the same claims politifact would rate Republican's worse and Democrats better or establish some kind of control. Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often.
  - knightofmars 4y ago
    >Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that Politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often. Agreed, the statements that Politifact chooses to cover are contentious and have high visibility. In the specific set of data points that were used to evaluate Politifact, a larger percentage of the statements made by Republicans are classified lies and more harshly (see article below from 2011). This proves nothing about the overall number of lies made by individuals within the Republican and Democrat parties. There are numerous ways this sort of situation within Politifact can come about even after excluding bias from Politifact. For example, a unique time period in which a small number of individuals who identify as Republicans are independently making more outrageous claims which skews the result. Or a time period in which a specific talking point (generally proven false) is being pushed as a narrative by a portion of a party but not a majority of the party (e.g., the 2020 election was stolen, or Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections). Point being, reaching the conclusion that Republicans lie more via Politifact or the findings of the original study is a fallacy. And reaching the conclusion that Politifact is biased is also a fallacy. The original article here: https://archive.ph/Drhw https://archive.ph/Drhw
- secondhandle 4y ago
  If anything this viewpoint is unreasonable and forms the basis of an informal fallacy, among the lines of a false equivalence. You are claiming an equivalent outcome based on an oversimplification to one factor ("all politicians lie the same") and/or ignorance of the plethora of factors that separate (and yes, in some cases confound) both parties. I know plenty of Republicans who think Democrats lie more and I know plenty of Democrats who think Republicans lie more. But I wouldn't justify a false compromise through anecdotal evidence.
lukas099 4y ago
I think that the claim of left-wing bias in academia, news media, etc. is true, but not nearly as much as right-wingers say it is. I also don't find it hard to believe that Republicans have lied more often than Democrats in the past decade, but probably not as much as PolitFact says they do.
StevePerkins 4y ago
Isn't this the methodology used for claiming pretty much every form of systemic bias these days?

lkrubner 4y ago

If Republicans lie 3 times more often then Democrats, then PoltiFact is doing its job accurately.

Clubber 4y ago
Of course, if people are arguing which political party lies more, they are unknowingly confirming that both parties lie regularly and the entire system is corrupt. The "who lies more," is just a way to justify the corruption for one side or the other.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  You are making a big jump from "one politician lied this specific time" to "the whole system is corrupt." The conclusion does not follow from initial incident. Specific cases of specific politicians lying does not suggest that the whole system is corrupt. And that (the lack of systematic implications) remains true, even if politicians from one political party can be shown to lie more often than politicians from other political parties.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    Imagine if it were a person you know, perhaps personally, or a work colleague that lied to you on multiple occasions. Do you tend to trust those people once they've lied? Do you feel comfortable giving them money? Do you feel comfortable giving them power over you? Would you ever say, "Bob lied to me a few times, but he's ok because Fred lies a lot more." It's not a big jump at all, we've just grown so accustomed to it, it feels normal. Because it feels so normal, it's pretty stark evidence of total corruption. To think any differently is really putting your head in the sand, IMO, but I've been following politics for a long time.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      Again, when a specific person lies, their personal trustworthiness is in doubt, but their lying does not raise systemic issues. Your attempt to generalize is not justified by any particular person lying.