Fact-checking the second night of the 2020 RNC

[tulc]

PolitiFact - Fact-checking the second night of the 2020 RNC

The second night of the Republican National Convention painted a picture of a compassionate White House in action. But it also showed the blurring of long-standing traditions, and maybe laws, about not mixing politics and government.

tulc(thought people would find this interesting)

 

[Redwingfan9]

PolitiFact - Fact-checking the second night of the 2020 RNC

tulc(thought people would find this interesting)

Who made the media the nation's fact checkers? I can't stand this nonsense no matter who they go after. Clarifying details while implying someone is lying for not providing every last detail is evidence of bias and/or a need for a fact checker to feel relevant.

 

[tulc]

Who made the media the nation's fact checkers?

Actually...I kind of thought that was the medias job.

I can't stand this nonsense no matter who they go after.

if it's so annoying why post in a thread about fact checking?

Clarifying details while implying someone is lying for not providing every last detail is evidence of bias and/or a need for a fact checker to feel relevant.

Well I kind of like knowing when someone says something if what's being said is true or not. And I don't really care if the person saying it believes it's true or not, as long as the actual facts are posted and the person posting the facts supports those facts. Sincerity is nice, but I've been very sincere in believing something and have still been sincerely wrong about that something. I prefer to know the truth.
tulc(which is why he likes fact checking sites)

 

[Redwingfan9]

Actually...I kind of thought that was the medias job.



if it's so annoying why post in a thread about fact checking?


Well I kind of like knowing when someone says something if what's being said is true or not. And I don't really care if the person saying it believes it's true or not, as long as the actual facts are posted and the person posting the facts supports those facts. Sincerity is nice, but I've been very sincere in believing something and have still been sincerely wrong about that something. I prefer to know the truth.
tulc(which is why he likes fact checking sites)

The problem with these fact checkers is that they make themselves out to be the arbiters of what truth is. Their bias comes out when they decide something is false despite the fact that the speaker is providing opinion. This has been a problem for over a decade since the media decided it was going to run fact check columns. One example is earlier this year Pence was yammering about how quickly he moved to do HIV research and other HIV related things when he was Governor of Indiana. The fact checkers called him a liar because they determined he moved slower than he portrayed. What is fast and what is slow is a subjective matter of opinion, to call someone a liar over their subjective beliefs is evidence of bias in the person claiming a lie has been told. Especially so when the underlying facts aren't at issue.

 

[tulc]

you mean this one:
How Mike Pence Made Indiana’s HIV Outbreak Worse
which cites this:
Dynamics of the HIV Outbreak and Response in Scott County, Indiana, 2011-2015: A Modeling Study
as their basis for coming to that conclusion. Which is why I like good fact checking sites, they support why they determined what they determined.
I might also point out they didn't call him a liar, they said he just plain wrong. there is a difference.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[tulc]

In fact he got a half true in his response from Politifact:
PolitiFact - Fact-checking Pence’s defense of response to Indiana HIV outbreak

• A rural county in southeastern Indiana had a spike in HIV cases in 2014 and 2015.
  
  
• After noticing the spike, state officials began investigating the causes of the outbreak and identifying people who might have been infected.
  
  
• However, a crucial component of the response — a needle exchange program — was authorized months after officials noticed the increase in HIV cases.
  

tulc(hopes that helps)

 

[Sparagmos]

The problem with these fact checkers is that they make themselves out to be the arbiters of what truth is. Their bias comes out when they decide something is false despite the fact that the speaker is providing opinion. This has been a problem for over a decade since the media decided it was going to run fact check columns. One example is earlier this year Pence was yammering about how quickly he moved to do HIV research and other HIV related things when he was Governor of Indiana. The fact checkers called him a liar because they determined he moved slower than he portrayed. What is fast and what is slow is a subjective matter of opinion, to call someone a liar over their subjective beliefs is evidence of bias in the person claiming a lie has been told. Especially so when the underlying facts aren't at issue.

What in their fact check was inaccurate? Pence said “immediately,” which is more specific than “fast,” and politifact did not call him a liar, they labeled it “half-true.” The fact check was very detailed and allowed people to judge for themselves.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Actually...I kind of thought that was the medias job.

When will at least one media outlet actually attempt to honestly do that? Certainly
Politifact won't. Their refusal to admit Sanger was a racist as well as a eugenicist ( as if just being a eugenicist was somehow a fine and noble thing) is clear proof of that.

 

[Redwingfan9]

What in their fact check was inaccurate? Pence said “immediately,” which is more specific than “fast,” and politifact did not call him a liar, they labeled it “half-true.” The fact check was very detailed and allowed people to judge for themselves.

Saying what Pence said is a half truth is forcing your own political ideology onto a politician. Everyone knows terms like "immediately" aren't to be taken literally in a political context. It's like saying "I won't sleep until xyz happens." Everyone knows it's figurative but I would suspect Politifact would call out a Republican for a "half truth" while pointing put the scientific impossibility of not sleeping for days on end.

 

[tulc]

When will at least one media outlet actually attempt to honestly do that?

I think they the ones I cite tend to do that, you know how I know that? Because they tend to annoy all sides over different things. some think they give certain people too much slack and are too harsh on others. What I see is they support (with links and such) the reasons they give for why they do what they do. I like that Politifact has several different gages the thier "truth-o-meter". Found here:
PolitiFact - The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter: PolitiFact’s methodology for independent fact-checking

Certainly Politifact won't. Their refusal to admit Sanger was a racist as well as a eugenicist ( as if just being a eugenicist was somehow a fine and noble thing) is clear proof of that.

...are you saying because you disagree with what they say about her that makes everything else they say suspect? That seems...arbitrary. Are the facts they have about her wrong? If they don't have the facts wrong are you claiming they're wrong based on the facts or on your opinion about the facts? See the difference?
tulc(is just curious)

 

[Sparagmos]

Saying what Pence said is a half truth is forcing your own political ideology onto a politician. Everyone knows terms like "immediately" aren't to be taken literally in a political context. It's like saying "I won't sleep until xyz happens." Everyone knows it's figurative but I would suspect Politifact would call out a Republican for a "half truth" while pointing put the scientific impossibility of not sleeping for days on end.

I see you set the bar for politicians incredibly low. We get it - facts aren’t important to you.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I see you set the bar for politicians incredibly low. We get it - facts aren’t important to you.

Media intentional misinterpretation is not important to me.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think they the ones I cite tend to do that, you know how I know that? Because they tend to annoy all sides over different things. some think they give certain people too much slack and are too harsh on others. What I see is they support (with links and such) the reasons they give for why they do what they do. I like that Politifact has several different gages the thier "truth-o-meter". Found here:
PolitiFact - The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter: PolitiFact’s methodology for independent fact-checking


...are you saying because you disagree with what they say about her that makes everything else they say suspect? That seems...arbitrary. Are the facts they have about her wrong? If they don't have the facts wrong are you claiming they're wrong based on the facts or on your opinion about the facts? See the difference?
tulc(is just curious)

No I'm saying I have seen their constant spin too often to consider them as fact checkers, Politifact is much more politi than fact.

 

[tulc]

No I'm saying I have seen their constant spin too often to consider them as fact checkers, Politifact is much more politi than fact.

Well, that's your opinion (and of course I also stated mine) an when you disagree with what they say you are free to come on and disprove what you find is wrong, but just posting "I disagree with what they say!" isn't really an argument, it's an opinion. The problem I see is fact checkers tend to supply facts, while some of the people who don't agree with them tend to supply opinions as if their opinions=facts, or even opinions>facts. Neither of those are true.
tulc(is looking into making a coffee rub for hamburgers because...coffee)

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, that's your opinion (and of course I also stated mine) an when you disagree with what they say you are free to come on and disprove what you find is wrong, but just posting "I disagree with what they say!" isn't really an argument, it's an opinion. The problem I see is fact checkers tend to supply facts, while some of the people who don't agree with them tend to supply opinions as if their opinions=facts, or even opinions>facts. Neither of those are true.
tulc(is looking into making a coffee rub for hamburgers because...coffee)

Politifact supplies more spin than fact. I have pointed out it out on numerous occasions when their rating does not fit the facts they provide never mind the facts they decide to omit.