22 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFPolitifact passes itself off as neutral and unbiased.
So political discourse - in part, at least - becomes people calling each other out for hypocrisy because they have subtle biases?
While is may be pointless to harp on the political biases of a political candidate, passing oneself off as "Sorting out the truth in politics" voluntarily opens oneself to attacks on the basis of bias.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76If you're looking for examples of harsh judgements on Republicans, you'll find them. If you're looking for examples of soft judgements on Democrats, you'll find them. But the reverse is also true.
Politifact passes itself off as neutral and unbiased.
While is may be pointless to harp on the political biases of a political candidate, passing oneself off as "Sorting out the truth in politics" voluntarily opens oneself to attacks on the basis of bias.
So you shouldn't change your opinion on a bad sequence, but keep a longer run view of things. Or focus on the big questions (see zeeblebot's comment). For example, do you think the Obameter is biased? If the website tilts Democrat, then there you should find the most tilting.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76But wait a minute, as political blogs and web sites go, and analysis outlets go, isn't it relatively neutral? Look at some of the "evidence" introduced here at RHP by people on the "left" and the "right". Some of it is so twisted and poisonous, discourse often becomes almost impossible. Isn't relatively neutral material to be welcomed in a public domain with such a polarized landscape?
Politifact passes itself off as neutral and unbiased.
While is may be pointless to harp on the political biases of a political candidate, passing oneself off as "Sorting out the truth in politics" voluntarily opens oneself to attacks on the basis of bias.
You yourself described it as having only a 'subtle bias'. And here you are attacking it - for what political purpose? Horse-race-politics-for-relative-moderates? It may not be conscious on your part, but it comes across as just knocking the wind out of the vital middle gound [where the only solutions that are ever going to get any traction will be forged, eventually], leaving the landscape littered with all the 'totally and utterly biased' dreck of the howardgees and whodeys of this world.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaMy opinion is based on the hundred or so politifact articles I've read in the last few weeks (they're interesting, even if biased). I can only cite a few examples, of course. I can't do an exhaustive analysis of all of them. That's why I invite others to read 100 politifact articles with a critical eye and determine if they agree with me.
If you're looking for examples of harsh judgements on Republicans, you'll find them. If you're looking for examples of soft judgements on Democrats, you'll find them. But the reverse is also true.
So you shouldn't change your opinion on a bad sequence, but keep a longer run view of things. Or focus on the big questions (see zeeblebot's comment). For examp ...[text shortened]... ter is biased? If the website tilts Democrat, then there you should find the most tilting.
22 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I seem to think it's relatively neutral, but that may be because I'm biased myself.
My opinion is based on the hundred or so politifact articles I've read in the last few weeks (they're interesting, even if biased). I can only cite a few examples, of course. I can't do an exhaustive analysis of all of them. That's why I invite others to read 100 politifact articles with a critical eye and determine if they agree with me.
But wait... what about you? There was quite a disagreement here about your reading of their judgements so, who knows? Perhaps the bias is elsewhere... Maybe it was the point of this thread to find out which one, what has the thread told you so far?
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFOkay, yes, as blogs go, they're relatively neutral. As a Pulitzer Prize winner, I think it's fair they be held to a higher standard than Drudge or redtstate or moveon or Huffington.
But wait a minute, as political blogs and web sites go, and analysis outlets go, isn't it relatively neutral? Look at some of the "evidence" introduced here at RHP by people on the "left" and the "right". Some of it is so twisted and poisonous, discourse often becomes almost impossible. Isn't relatively neutral material to be welcomed in a public d ...[text shortened]... the 'totally and utterly biased' dreck of the howardgees and whodeys of this world.
The impetus for the thread was that, a few weeks ago, USAP cited politifact. Uther ripped politifact for bias. I came down on USAP's side that they're neutral.
After further review, I therefore felt the need to qualify my earlier judgment which was based on much less info than that I gained subsequent to the initial judgment.
I do understand your over-all point, though.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, only No1 really came out with an argument against my conclusion, which I do not agree with, for reasons stated above. Everyone else either agreed with me, confined themselves to perfunctory words of agreement or disagreement or discussed tangential issues.
I seem to think it's relatively neutral, but that may be because I'm biased myself.
But wait... what about you? There was quite a disagreement here about your reading of their judgements so, who knows? Perhaps the bias is elsewhere... Maybe it was the point of this thread to find out which one, what has the thread told you so far?
So, no, I have seen nothing in this thread so far that makes me question my initial hypothesis.
22 Sep 10
Some thoughts:
In the end, at the very minimum, it provides an interesting summary of the evidence regarding a given statement. It tends to show both sides of the story (as the examples here show, counter arguments were many times based on the information provided by the site itself!) and so it helps you make up your own mind. If you think even this information is slightly biased, then fair enough. But even then it's a great starting point.
The final judgment is a just selling gimmick. You can ignore it and still reap the full benefits of the site.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by Palynkagood points
Some thoughts:
In the end, at the very minimum, it provides an interesting summary of the evidence regarding a given statement. It tends to show both sides of the story (as the examples here show, counter arguments were many times based on the information provided by the site itself!) and so it helps you make up your own mind. If you think even this infor ...[text shortened]... ment is a just selling gimmick. You can ignore it and still reap the full benefits of the site.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76Another completely illogical argument.
Juxtapose the Fiorina layoff rating with this one on a George Will claim:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/14/george-will/george-will-says-tax-cuts-wealthy-cost-less-over-1/
[b]George Will says tax cuts for wealthy cost less over 10 years than stimulus did in one year
Rated "barely true" because:
While they concede
[quo ...[text shortened]... to the deficit than[/i]
Politifact's paraphrase: cost less[/b]
"The president says we can't afford the tax cuts for the wealthy because that would add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, which is to say, over 10 years it would add less to the deficit than Obama added with the stimulus in one year," Will said.
The 10 year versus 1 year is the entire crux of Will's argument. But, of course, the stimulus was paid out over several years. So his statement is misleading and inaccurate.
By contrast, Fiorina has publicly conceded, even boasted, that she did layoff 30,000 workers at HP; an admission that you illogically ignore.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76Again, I'm not very impressed with "more people on the forum agree with me so I must be right" "arguments". As I always say "Eat [crude term for feces]; 100 billion flies can't be wrong".
Well, only No1 really came out with an argument against my conclusion, which I do not agree with, for reasons stated above. Everyone else either agreed with me, confined themselves to perfunctory words of agreement or disagreement or discussed tangential issues.
So, no, I have seen nothing in this thread so far that makes me question my initial hypothesis.
Your statement regarding the Brown piece:
If you read the article, you'll see that the tax lowering, if any, was more a result of federal policy and Proposition 13
is clearly false; the article says nothing about federal policy and questions whether Prop 13 had an effect on State spending (rather than local spending; it capped property taxes). It discusses a couple of tax cuts Brown signed and a few tax increases he signed and then uses figures that show that the average State tax burden on residents of California decreased under Brown. That makes Brown's statement factually correct though is some debate as to why. An assessment that it is Mostly True seems well-grounded in the facts.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76I started that thread because the two posts I quoted were replies I recently received from the 'toned down' shavixmir on other threads. Such imagery can only emanate from the sort of diseased mind that motivates paedophiles to abuse children.
SR, Do you not realize that shav says these things precisely because he can get a rise out of people like you by doing so?
Really, for months, shav was basically toned down and we'd seen very few of these sorts of posts. But then you started a thread for the sole purpose of giving shav attention for his inflammatory posts.
Did you really, really, think this was going to stop him or egg him on?
The man is an uncouth oaf at best, and I do not intend to let him off the hook if he continues to carry on in that vein.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76what, is the Pulitzer Prize neutral?
Okay, yes, as blogs go, they're relatively neutral. As a Pulitzer Prize winner, I think it's fair they be held to a higher standard than Drudge or redtstate or moveon or Huffington.
The impetus for the thread was that, a few weeks ago, USAP cited politifact. Uther ripped politifact for bias. I came down on USAP's side that they're neutral.
After further r ...[text shortened]... I gained subsequent to the initial judgment.
I do understand your over-all point, though.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderthe tax burden may have gone down under Brown, but trying to take credit for it when at the time he tried to raise the tax burden by passing increases and working against Prop 13, etc., still makes him deceitful.
Again, I'm not very impressed with "more people on the forum agree with me so I must be right" "arguments". As I always say "Eat [crude term for feces]; 100 billion flies can't be wrong".
Your statement regarding the Brown piece:
If you read the article, you'll see that the tax lowering, if any, was more a result of ...[text shortened]... bate as to why. An assessment that it is Mostly True seems well-grounded in the facts.