Thursday, Politifact Editor Bill Adair probably ruined his outlet's chances of ever being taken seriously again as an objective debunker of political spin. What a shame. There's a glaring need for somebody to play that role, and Politifact was in a unique position to fill it. Its parent newspaper is owned by a foundation, which should relieve them of some of the pressures that for-profit publishers place on editors.

Unfortunately, Bill Adair has made it impossible for Politifact to fill that role by committing a series of errors in judgment that culminated with today's intemperate rant.

There are good and bad ways to respond when a media outlet's criticized harshly. Today Adair chose the worst way - arrogance, distortion, and ad hominem attacks. There's very little chance Politifact will ever regain its credibility.

Background

Many people, including me, were highly critical of what we felt was Politifact's egregious mischaracterizations of the Republicans' Medicare plan back in May. A number of us responded to Politifact's argument that Democrats were wrong to claim that the Ryan plan passed by the house would not "end Medicare as we know it." We believed then, and continue to believe, that it would.

Politifact's response at the time could best be characterized as disdainful indifference. That was a mistake, and it led to an escalation of the rhetoric that apparently bruised Adair's feelings and his ego.

The Politifact team failed to understand that credibility is essential to its mission. A "fact checking" project is only useful if people believe that it is both unbiased and intelligent in its assessments. You don't have to agree with your critics, nor do you have to enjoy being the recipient of heated criticism. (Who does?) But you do have to engage your critics and their arguments if you are to remain credible.

Poltifact didn't just ignore the criticisms it received last May. It then upped the ante this week by naming the Medicare issue "The Lie of the Year." It should have expected the firestorm of criticism that followed.

How Politifact could have responded effectively

The best way to respond to criticism is to review your critics' charges, consider them, and - if you still disagree - rebut them point by point. You accomplish several things that way:

1) You show respect for your critics.
2) You affirm your own objectivity. (A journalist needs to remain objective, even when being criticized.)
3) You let your readers know you have understood these criticisms and considered them carefully.
4) You demonstrate a willingness to correct yourself if you have erred.
5) Even if you don't change your position, you can now defend it with some credibility.

Adair and Politifact should have responded this way in May, or at the very least this week.

The Low Road

Continue reading »

  This new Bin Laden tape has the right wingers acting like idiots. On the one hand, they are thrilled because they feel any reminder of the terrorist "threat" is good for the GOP. That's nothing new, I know.

But on the other hand, they have to understand that if one thinks about it even a little, it hurts Bush, since he should have got Bin Laden already, so they are stuck trying to figure a way out of that narrative. The best they can come up with is that Bin Laden either sounds like a Democrat or as the NY Times wingnut op-ed columnist David Brooks opines:

Download | play Download | play

Brooks: I mean on one hand he's a malevolent guy who killed three thousand Americans, but you read this thing and it's like he's been sitting around reading lefty blogs and one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page (garbled) Noam Chomsky and all this stuff.

That's right, Bin Laden sounds just like a lefty blogger, or worse, Chomsky.  I tell you what,  I'll line up anything I've ever written against Wanker Brooks.  I promise you, his average of being right is well below the Mendoza line.  In fact, let's look at this January 2005 essay by Chomsky:

Let's just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let's say more or less democratic, what are the policies likely to be?

Well there's going to be a Shiite majority, so they'll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they'll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don't particularly like Iran, but they don't want to go to war with them so they'll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That's the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare-a Shiite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent.

Hmmm....does that sound like loony left ravings to you?  Contrast that to the fact checking I found for Brook's January 29, 2005 NYT op-ed from the aptly named "David Brooks is a moron".  'Nuff said.

(thanks to Nicole for her help)

I don't mind a heated debate, but I look down on lies, sloppy reading, and careless writing.

There's a winger website that has apparently taken to specializing in lying about what I write - unless they just don't know what they're doing. To paraphrase Jimi Hendix, is it hate ... or just confusion?

Here's an example: Read this piece in the Huffington Post, and then this one by the self-described Gateway Pundit. Then, find the lies.

I'll get you started:

1. The victim in my piece is innocent. They claim that I characterized the victim in my piece as a terrorist.
2. There's no mention of Abu Ghraib, or of the United States, in my piece.
3. I never called terrorists "freedom fighters." They're claiming Cindy Sheehan did, although even if their transcript is correct her meaning isn't clear. What's that got to do with my piece?

(UPDATE: As they did once before, they deleted something to cover their tracks -- their claim that I called the victim a terrorist -- rather than do the right thing and 'fess up.)

Despite having written about me before by name, they get my name wrong. "E. J. Escrow" seems to be a conflation of E. J. Dionne and their tax problems. Not that it bothers me - "RJ" isn't the name my mother gave me. It certainly exemplifies their level of quality control.

But then, fact checking isn't the Right's specialty, is it?

Ands they've said false things about me before over there, so it must be standard practice for them. (continued )

Aaron Broussard responds

Tim Russert went on the attack today to please the right wing apologists who had the nerve to fact check his impassioned outburst on MTP during the nightmare of Katrina. (Update-fact checking is fine, but to me this was callous) When you don't like what you hear-attack the messenger. Yes, you uncovered a distorted time line of events. A man who had experienced the pain of his friend’s mother’s death muddied the facts. Who did it hurt? All levels of government including the President and you can't have that. What was the end result? A man’s mother died. She’s gone. You cretins. How do you sleep at night knowing that? What did your investigation prove? Aaron Broussard got the facts wrong in an emotional outburst on national television. Way to go. I have posted videos that attacked most everyone involved in this fiasco. Everyone played a part in this but you would rather attack Broussard who witnessed the mass death of hundreds of people and the coldness of your own hearts couldn’t allow for him losing it. I probably can guess that not one of you shed a tear over anybody that lost their lives because of government ineptitude.

I wonder how many of these apologists have ever been in a catastrophe before? These fools see any attempt to put the blame at the door of the federal government as biased. Even Michelle Malkin who I disagree with on almost everything only had the nerve to post a brief article on the episode. I think she knew better than to get into the action herself because you know she would if she felt strongly about it.

To explain it to the tools. Tragedy like we saw with Katrina has a horrifying effect on you when you're in the middle of it. (I've been in two major earthquakes) When your friend's mother dies because of neglect you don't line up your talking points and crocodile tears to score political points.

Download | play -WMP Bittorrent-WMP

Download | play -QT Bittorrent-QT

Broussard was stunned today when Timmy replayed the segment and he attacked back. You decide on the merits of what he said both times he was on the show.

Broussard: "Listen, sir, somebody wants to nitpick a man's tragic loss of a mother because she was abandoned in a nursing home? Are you kidding? What kind of sick mind, what kind of black-hearted people want to nitpick a man's mother's death? They just buried Eva last week. I was there at the wake. Are you kidding me? That wasn't a box of Cheerios they buried last week."

The Carpetbagger Report has the complete transcript of Rove's speech.

Kristen Breitweiser posts: Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

Patricia posts: Liberal Soldiers Fight and Die too, Mr. Rove

Kevin Drum: FACT CHECKING KARL.

Obsidian Wings posts: Social Security: The Second Time As Farce

Arianna posts: This Just In: Rove Apologizes, Weeps Like a Baby

Steve writes: Pataki calls Sen. Clinton 'hypocritical', rejects demand he repudiate Rove remarks.

Check out Mike's Blog Round-up. Mike has been out of the country, but we're still trying to keep it updated daily.