Is PolitiFact Biased? You decide!

[Deletedaccount1]

Voting corruption is not the same thing as actually making it harder to vote.



Which is why it was rated as half true. While some polls did put America in the top...others disagreed.

As for America being more liked now then 8 years ago.




Russia and China are 2 countries. Out of 196.

Also, Obamas statement was "Stronger and more respected" not "They all like us a lot more". Very different.

The example I gave of Japan is not voting corruption, it is making it harder to vote by making it difficult to know when and where to vote, thus making it harder to vote.

As for America being the most respected, the only evidence the white house had for that was a single poll comparing the US to China, Russia, the EU and Germany and America ending up on top out of 1000 people polled in different countries.

No other poll agrees with that. Since that is a lack of evidence and those 30 something countries included in there aren't every country on Earth, it is fair to say America is not the most respected country on Earth.

As for America being more respected now than 8 years ago, I can't find any info saying that the US is seen more positively. What you critique me of misunderstanding, Politifact also doesn't address.

In the article they say:

Obama said, "Almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago when I took office."

The general sentiment that the United States is viewed more positively around the world is supported by three different sets of polls, but they don’t specifically talk about strength or respect.

So they say Obama can't back up that America is more respected and seen as strong by almost every country when I can provide 3 concrete examples of America being seen as less strong and less respected in 3 key areas of US foreign policy.

- - - Updated - - -

My final point:

Politifact cuts Democrats more slack than Republicans. That would be fine if they didn't judge things on a true-false scale.

[purebalance]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...7-cents-dolla/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ake-77-cents-/

When Obama specified that women are paid less for the same job as men. He got a rating of mostly false but when he brought up the fact theirs a gap and gave no specific reason he got a mostly true. Which seems fair to me honestly but whatever.

It may be "true" but in the way he was using it, it was not at all true. He was using it to say women were paid less. Regardless of the "technically yes", he intended it to mean women are getting the shaft. Which they aren't. Hell if anything hookers and porn stars definitely make WAY more money as women.

[Ahhdurr]

Garbage thread is garbage an should be locked.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The example I gave of Japan is not voting corruption, it is making it harder to vote by making it difficult to know when and where to vote, thus making it harder to vote.

That doesn't make it harder to vote though. Elections were run for quite some time before Television. And again, the statement was given a half-true.

As for America being the most respected, the only evidence the white house had for that was a single poll comparing the US to China, Russia, the EU and Germany and America ending up on top out of 1000 people polled in different countries.

Again, that's why it was rated as half-true.

So they say Obama can't back up that America is more respected and seen as strong by almost every country when I can provide 3 concrete examples of America being seen as less strong and less respected in 3 key areas of US foreign policy.

Actually, you didn't. You provided examples about how some countries don't like certain foreign policies...you provided nothing to support that the US is less respected overall or considered less strong by even those countries. Russia and China aren't going to like everything Obama does or says. They also didn't like everything Bush had to say either.

- - - Updated - - -

On another note. Here's a link to the page where Politifact has given Obama a "Pants on Fire" Rating...which shows politifact is not afraid to call out Obama when he's completely wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

[Wells]

A change in position isn't the point. There are several times where Hillary Clinton makes claims about those positions which aren't true, and may objectively be verified.

For example, here is a politifact piece investigating Trump's claims that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning

Politifact clearly viewed this as worth investigating, but not when Clinton claims her views have been consistent from the start.

If the question is whether or not Politifact is biased, the answer is yes. They are selective in which statements they analyze. Whether or not this is conscious or not is irrelevant. There are too many examples of Clinton lying which are not analyzed, which leads me to believe there is some sort of bias at play.

When did Clinton claim she wasn't for the Iraq War at the time? Or are you complaining that they haven't analyzed every claim every candidate's made?

[BuckSparkles]

I consider it biased. But then some people think its true because it has "fact" in the name....

[Deletedaccount1]

On another note. Here's a link to the page where Politifact has given Obama a "Pants on Fire" Rating...which shows politifact is not afraid to call out Obama when he's completely wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/personalit...ng/pants-fire/

This isn't going anywhere so you can continue living in your world where America being the most respected country in the world is a half truth because 1 poll of 1000 people ranked it higher than the EU, China and Russia.

I know they give Democrats pants on fire ratings but obviously at a much lesser rate.

[Macaquerie]

The title of this thread pretty much tells you what's wrong with right wingers these days. Whether or not Politifact is biased isn't determined by whether people think that it is, certainly not people who already have pre-formed opinions about fact-checking websites and the media in general.

[7-4]

How the hell is 'no' winning? Is this forum majority leftist?

[Deletedaccount1]

How the hell is 'no' winning? Is this forum majority leftist?

Yeah it is. Not as much as people say but they do have a majority.

[ringpriest]

I think they are, I see it all the time.

I think it has something to do with reality's well-known liberal bias.

[munkeyinorbit]

...

I think they are, I see it all the time.

That's not how it works, You cannot decide if something is biased because you are biased. A little schooling will go along way...

- - - Updated - - -

I consider it biased. But then some people think its true because it has "fact" in the name....

Some people also think that their views are unbiased and make their views fact. What is worse?

[lockedout]

Who owns Politifact?

[Deletedaccount1]

Just looked it up and Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay Times, a paper which endorsed Clinton for president this year.

- - - Updated - - -

Who owns Politifact?

Good timing on my part.

[Orbitus]

That infographic is well made and nice looking. But where's the cherry tree you picked these examples from?

In his ass.

[Fojos]

How the hell is 'no' winning? Is this forum majority leftist?

It's obvious. The forum is full of young idealists with no life experience who think everyone is somehow essentially good.

Older people tend to become less idealistic for obvious reasons.

[Orbitus]

I consider it biased. But then some people think its true because it has "fact" in the name....

No, it is "fact" because they source their evidence. Something a lot of posters on this board should learn to do. You know, like yourself and others.

[Wells]

It's obvious. The forum is full of young idealists with no life experience who think everyone is somehow essentially good

So obvious.

[Orbitus]

How the hell is 'no' winning? Is this forum majority leftist?

Well, because it is pretty much true. They might get one wrong here or there, but they will usually fix it if they get new evidence. Something you will never see a right wing source do after it makes a false claim.

[Fojos]

So obvious.

Wells is a perfect example of this.