20 Sep 10
1 edit
Since that big brouhaha over politifact a few weeks ago, I've been looking at the site more and more and I hereby retract my earlier assertion that the site is neutral.
http://politifact.com/
Every rating they make can be justified in a vacuum, but after reading hundreds of their articles, I now believe that they judge statements made by conservatives slightly harsher than those made by liberals, in general.
Just from some recent ones:
http://politifact.com/personalities/barbara-boxer/
"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."
-Barbara Boxer
Rated: Mostly True
Given that during Fiorina's over-all tenure at HP, there was either a slight net gain in jobs over-all or an approximately equal number of hires and layoffs, a claim of 30,000 layoffs in a vacuum, even if there were over-all that many lay-offs, strikes me as substantially misleading. No way this should be rated better than "half true."
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/17/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-raised-taxes-not-overall/
"Taxes went down under Jerry Brown."
- Jerry Brown
Rated: Mostly true
If you read the article, you'll see that the tax lowering, if any, was more a result of federal policy and Proposition 13, which Brown OPPOSED. At very best, this is a half truth. Personally, I'd rate it as barely true.
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/sep/17/republican-governors-association/republican-governors-association-says-tom-barrett-/
Tom Barrett "voted for the largest tax increase in history ... raising taxes on gas and Social Security."
- Republican Gov. Assoc.
Rated: Barely True
Politifact tag line: "Economists and experts use a different measuring stick than political opponents do"
From the article: "The Times story does say that, but the full sentence contains a key phrase ignored by Schrimpf and the RGA. Here’s the full sentence (italics added): "So in actual dollars, the 1993 measure was the largest tax increase in American history.""
Uh, fellas, that makes the statement true. That it wasn't measured in % of GDP (their critcism), at best, makes it slightly misleading. This should be rated mostly true or at least half true.
Of the "pants on fire" ratings, almost all of them are statements made by conservatives. There are plenty of liberal statements on the "false" page that could have earned "pants on fire"s if the site makers were so inclined.
Yes, they do rate some liberals' statements as "pants on fire" and some conservatives' statements as true, and as I said, every rating they make can be defended in a vacuum. But the most I read that site, the more I sense that the same falsehoods that get conservatives "pants on fire"s get liberals "false"s and the same partial truths that get conservatives "barely true"s get liberals "half true"s and "mostly true"s. I'm not even sure this is intentional. Perhaps the authors' natural political inclinations are having a subtle effect. But the effect is there. I challenge anyone to read through a random 50 articles from that site and deny that there's some level of underlying double standard.
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76WTF? In a 2006 interview Fiorina herself said:
Since that big brouhaha over politifact a few weeks ago, I've been looking at the site more and more and I hereby retract my earlier assertion that the site is neutral.
http://politifact.com/
Every rating they make can be justified in a vacuum, but after reading hundreds of their articles, I now believe that they judge statements made by conservatives sli ...[text shortened]... that there's some level of underlying double standard.
In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people.
I'd say Mostly True is generous ................ to the Republican.
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderBut she hired more than that.
WTF? In a 2006 interview Fiorina herself said:
In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people.
I'd say Mostly True is generous ................ to the Republican.
If go to Vegas and play the slots 1,000 times and win 10 times for $250 but lose all of that plus another $1,000 and later I come home and say "I won $250 in Vegas," what I'm saying is technically true, but am I being honest?
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76Money is fungible; human beings are not. There is no question that 30,000 people were laid off by Fiorina. She admits it. The statement is True.
But she hired more than that.
If go to Vegas and play the slots 1,000 times and win 10 times for $250 but lose all of that plus another $1,000 and later I come home and say "I won $250 in Vegas," what I'm saying is technically true, but am I being honest?
20 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEvery company has to lay off people at one point or another. If you hire 100 people and have to lay off 90 of them, you've created net jobs. It's hardly fair for people to shout that you've laid off 90 people when you created 100 jobs in the first place.
Money is fungible; human beings are not. There is no question that 30,000 people were laid off by Fiorina. She admits it. The statement is True.
20 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthWell, to be fair, I did use that as an example, so it's fair to call me on that.
I think he said that any specific claim could be defended in a vacuum.
I do maintain that the attack on Fiorina, while technically true, is very misleading. I believe that's what the "barely true" and "half true" ratings are for.
20 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76You're full of crap. Both Boxer AND Fiorina agree that she laid off 30,000 workers. During her tenure with the company, she "restructured" it with the result that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. She admits and even boasts about it.
Every company has to lay off people at one point or another. If you hire 100 people and have to lay off 90 of them, you've created net jobs. It's hardly fair for people to shout that you've laid off 90 people when you created 100 jobs in the first place.
"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."
-Barbara Boxer
In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people.
-Carly Fiorina
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderno1: She laid off 30,000 people.
You're full of crap. Both Boxer AND Fiorina agree that she laid off 30,000 workers. As soon as she took over the company, she "restructured" it with the result that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. She admits and even boasts about it.
"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."
-Barbara Boxer
In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people.
-Carly Fiorina
sh: Yes, but she hired more than that so it's unfair to talk about the 30,000 in a vacuum
no1: She admitted to laying off 30,000 people
sh: Yes, but every company lays off people and although she did lay off 30,000 people it's unfair to look at that fact drawn out of its context
no1: You're full of crap. She admitted to laying off 30,000 people.
🙄
If I wanted to talk to a broken record, I'd call my mother in law.
20 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Your implication that the 30,000 layoffs were just normal turnover in an ongoing business is far more misleading and untruthful than any of the statements you cite from Politifact.
no1: She laid off 30,000 people.
sh: Yes, but she hired more than that so it's unfair to talk about the 30,000 in a vacuum
no1: She admitted to laying off 30,000 people
sh: Yes, but every company lays off people and although she did lay off 30,000 people it's unfair to look at that fact drawn out of its context
no1: You're full of crap. She admitted ...[text shortened]... f 30,000 people.
🙄
If I wanted to talk to a broken record, I'd call my mother in law.
sh76: If you hire 100 people and have to lay off 90 of them, you've created net jobs. It's hardly fair for people to shout that you've laid off 90 people when you created 100 jobs in the first place.
Fiorina created no jobs in the first place at HP; she didn't start the company. She then decided to lay off 30,000 people. So your statements are deliberately misleading while Boxer's and Fiorina's in 2006 aren't.
