Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

Is Jon Stewart right that Fox News viewers are consistently misinformed on political issues?

MediaJune 2011 • Views: 37,835

For more information on the dustup among Jon Stewart, Fox News, and Politifact, here’s Politifact’s original piece on Stewart’s claim that Fox News viewers are more misinformed than viewers of other networks: PolitiFact | Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the ‘most consistently misinformed media viewers’.

When many Politifact readers challenged their analysis, they responded with another article defending their “False” rating: PolitiFact | Readers say we were uninformed about Jon Stewart’s claim.

But I think the Politifact editors are still missing an important point, by looking at the issue too broadly. The real problem with Fox’s news reporting is that it misinforms their audience specifically, and most insistently, on issues that are hot button right wing talking points — such as Sarah Palin’s “death panels,” or “Obamacare is a government takeover of health care,” or any number of other far right causes of the day.

Indeed, the two absurd lies listed above were Politifact’s Lies of the Year for 2009 and 2010, respectively — and both of these falsehoods are now unchallengeable articles of faith on the right wing, repeated endlessly on blogs, news sites, and in opinion pieces. I’d argue that Fox News is the prime reason for this near-universal acceptance of misinformation.

Chris Mooney has a good post at Desmogblog, linking to five studies that underline this point very effectively: Chris Mooney | Jon Stewart 1, Politifact 0: Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed.

A case in point is Politifact’s recent and deeply misguided attempt to correct Jon Stewart on the topic of…misinformation and Fox News. This is a subject on which we’ve developed some expertise here…my recent post on studies showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed, on an array of issues, is the most comprehensive such collection that I’m aware of, at least when it comes to public opinion surveys detecting statistical correlations between being misinformed about contested facts and Fox News viewership. I’ve repeatedly asked whether anyone knows of additional studies—including contradictory studies—but none have yet been cited.

Stewart, very much in the vein of my prior post, went on the air with Fox’s Chris Wallace and stated,

“Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

My research, and my recent post, most emphatically supports this statement. Indeed, I cited five (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) separate public opinion studies in support of it—although I carefully noted that these studies do not prove causation (e.g., that watching Fox News causes one to be more misinformed). The causal arrow could very well run the other way—believing wrong things could make one more likely to watch Fox News in the first place.

But the fundamental point is, when it comes to believing political misinformation and watching Fox News, I know of no other studies than these five—though I’d be glad to see additional studies produced. Until then, these five all point in one obvious direction.

“Every poll,” to quote Stewart.

Politifact wasn’t even aware of the studies I’ve cited. Instead, the site’s attempt to debunk Stewart largely relied on misunderstanding what he meant.

Read the whole thing…

Jump to bottom

90 comments

HAL2010 Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:13:46am

Who’s going to fact check the fact checkers fact checking the original fact checkers?!

This .. could get confusing.

On a more serious note, well done Chris Mooney.

JeffM70 Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:17:54am

Exactly. PolitiFact didn’t make or get the distinction between being misinformed versus being ill-informed. Fox routinely and intentionally pushes misinformation on its viewers in order to advance their conservative agenda.

Alexzander Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:18:29am

re: #1 HAL2010

It’s fact-checkers all the way down…

Alexzander Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:22:20am

quiet around here today…

sagehen Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:25:39am

re: #2 JeffM70

…misinformation on its viewers in order to advance their conservative agenda.

Starting with… misinforming them as to what “conservative” means.

Abolishing Medicare and Social Security? What the hell is “conservative” about a wholesale overthrow of long-standing major programs that almost everyone builds their lives around?

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:26:44am

When you overstate as in “Every poll” you get in trouble with fact checking. Stewart brilliantly dealt with this. Made that fact almost disappear.

Then if we drill down too far, as in MSNBC famously misleading their viewers into thinking it was confirmed (rather than merely asserted by critics) that the Commerce Dept had used foreign money for campaign related spending, we get a distorted view of the network overall.

Are Fox viewers misinformed about weather and sports? Prolly not. Are they misinformed on the truth of rightwing talking points? Of course. Does Handgun control or the NRA give us “fair and balanced” views of gun control? LOL.

Stewart missed one big point about MSM bias, he should have summed up the bias as a ratings bias. Whatever gets the views gets the time spent.

BongCrodny Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:31:40am

Stealing from Colbert, Fox has “factiness” checkers.

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:33:01am

re: #5 sagehen

Did a declared candidate call for abolishing medicare?

Interesting Times Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:36:38am

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

Did a declared candidate call for abolishing medicare?

Paul Ryan wants to abolish it and uses weasel-wording to get around this fact (i.e. preserving the name “Medicare” while turning it into a private voucher-based insurance system. If you take away a bar of gold and replace it with a spray-painted turd, you don’t get to claim you’ve “preserved” that bar of gold).

makeitstop Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:38:18am

re: #9 publicityStunted

Paul Ryan wants to abolish it and uses weasel-wording to get around this fact (i.e. preserving the name “Medicare” while turning it into a private voucher-based insurance system. If you take away a bar of gold and replace it with a spray-painted turd, you don’t get to claim you’ve “preserved” that bar of gold).

You can if you keep calling it a bar of gold!

/ / /

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:38:48am

re: #10 makeitstop

You can if you keep calling it a bar of gold!

/ / /

Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes…

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:39:06am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

ve summed up the bias as a ratings bias. Whatever gets the views gets the time spent.

This isn’t true, though. For FOX, it’s clearly ideological. FOX really, really is different from the rest of the MSM. You can call it a difference of quantity rather than of quality, but I’d disagree; FOX pushes partisan themes not just because it gets them viewership, but also because Ailes and others involved in FOX really want to push those reactionary views.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:40:15am

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

Did a declared candidate call for abolishing medicare?

Unless you can show that seniors would actually be able to purchase health insurance with the vouchers, then it is effectively abolishing medicare.

Seniors will not be able to purchase health insurance that’s worth a damn with the vouchers.

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:40:43am

re: #12 Obdicut

This isn’t true, though. For FOX, it’s clearly ideological. FOX really, really is different from the rest of the MSM. You can call it a difference of quantity rather than of quality, but I’d disagree; FOX pushes partisan themes not just because it gets them viewership, but also because Ailes and others involved in FOX really want to push those reactionary views.

Yup. For Murdoch, the viewership is part of the puzzle, but he’s at the very least equally interested (and probably it’s more than 50%) in the long game of deregulation and corporate power.

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:41:52am

re: #13 Obdicut

Unless you can show that seniors would actually be able to purchase health insurance with the vouchers, then it is effectively abolishing medicare.

Seniors will not be able to purchase health insurance that’s worth a damn with the vouchers.

Anyone who believes that the current GOP does not want to do away with Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and indeed as much of the (creaking) US welfare system as they can, is a fucking fool.

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:42:28am

re: #12 Obdicut

Sorry I meant where he was talking about the MSM apart from Fox.

And in a different way it’s true for FOX. Look at the ideology and look at the ratings. Both are way up there. Linked. With (as admitted by J.S.) MSNBC in hot pursuit for the other ideology. It’s becoming the ideology channels. Like the science channel in a biz model way.

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:47:02am

re: #13 Obdicut

Apart from angry partisan assumptions about the vouchers themselves how do you know that? Setting aside partisan anger and its impact on how we think-A voucher that paid Kaiser of Blue Cross to take as good care of my senior father as what he gets now is fine with me. The issue is quality of care not how we shuffle the money.

Now all I’m saying is neither assumption is smart right now. Assumptions at all are not the best plan. Lets see the vouchers. Let’s see what the Dems do with quality of care and affordability as opposing facts.

spiderx Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:48:35am

Politifact has lost some credibility. They’ve done a lot of damage considering FOX, being the propaganda outlet they are, will just use Politifact’s misleading report to say - “see? our viewers aren’t misinformed”

allegro Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:49:23am

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

Apart from angry partisan assumptions about the vouchers themselves how do you know that? Setting aside partisan anger and its impact on how we think-A voucher that paid Kaiser of Blue Cross to take as good care of my senior father as what he gets now is fine with me. The issue is quality of care not how we shuffle the money.

Now all I’m saying is neither assumption is smart right now. Assumptions at all are not the best plan. Lets see the vouchers. Let’s see what the Dems do with quality of care and affordability as opposing facts.

Any program that involves using and further enriching private medical insurance companies is not in the best interest of the public. One would have to be seriously delusional to think it would offer equivalent care and affordability.

spocomptonite Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:51:20am

Politifact is great when the issue is over an objective fact; either it is or it isn’t, and its pretty easy to establish which is which with evidence. In this case, however, the issue is more subjective. What is “misinformed”? How does one measure it? What is “the most”?
In this respect, Politifact (and anyone else) can define these variables differently and all arrive at different, yet still correct, variables. Thus, I think Politifact’s analysis is right, given how they defined their variables and analyzed the data. But I could tell they were having trouble; the studies they used are over a large time period and all of the studies were quite different. One of the studies was from Bush’s first term, well before I would say Fox went totally crazy.
I also think Jon Stewart, Charles, et al, are also correct. One really doesn’t need a survey to see all the blatantly wrong stuff Fox broadcasts (You can’t explain how tides work!), especially since ~2007/2008. But this analysis, while good enough for us, isn’t ‘data’ that Politifact can use.

TL;DR: Different standards, different answers.

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:51:23am

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

Apart from angry partisan assumptions about the vouchers themselves how do you know that?

Because the GOP has flat-out stated that the whole point of the vouchers is that they wouldn’t increase in value in line with medical cost inflation.

In other words, they are explicitly promising to reduce the amount of care provided/paid for by the state, because by definition the purchasing power of the vouchers will decline.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:54:00am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

I’m sorry, I don’t agree. I don’t think that MSNBC is in any way comparable to FOX in terms of adherence to and propagandizing of an ideology. I don’t think that saying that MSNBC is the same as FOX news makes much sense, either. They certainly have defended Obama and they certainly have been highly critical of the GOP. But saying they represent ‘the other ideology’ makes little sense. What ideology do they represent? FOX represents a revanchist conservatism, a highly regressive taxation system, a strong jingoistic nationalism, an anti-science lunacy.

To me, saying that MSNBC, because it criticizes the GOP heavily and defends the president, is similar in adherence to an ideology as FOX news is, is like saying that I am, or that Charles is.

The way that MSNBC is most similar to FOX is in format; aside from Maddow, very little of their critique and commentary is well-sourced, and tends towards the emotional appeal.

But they’re nowhere, at all, near the depth of outright lies that FOX is. And Maddow, left-leaning as she is, is probably the most responsible journalist around in making her arguments and giving opponents time to speak.

blueraven Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:54:19am

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

Sorry I meant where he was talking about the MSM apart from Fox.

And in a different way it’s true for FOX. Look at the ideology and look at the ratings. Both are way up there. Linked. With (as admitted by J.S.) MSNBC in hot pursuit for the other ideology. It’s becoming the ideology channels. Like the science channel in a biz model way.

There is no doubt MSNBC leans left. However, until the owner gives a cool million to the democratic party, the stations Washington bureau chief sends out memos for anchors to use terms like “government takeover of health-care”, has potential presidential candidates as paid commentators, then they are not equal.

allegro Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:54:28am

re: #21 iossarian

Because the GOP has flat-out stated that the whole point of the vouchers is that they wouldn’t increase in value in line with medical cost inflation.

In other words, they are explicitly promising to reduce the amount of care provided/paid for by the state, because by definition the purchasing power of the vouchers will decline.

Additionally, 20+% of those voucher dollars will be going to corporate profits and shareholders, not to medical care. Less than 3% of Medicare dollars go to overhead - actually I think it’s something like 1.4%.

Charles Johnson Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:54:45am

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

Apart from angry partisan assumptions about the vouchers themselves how do you know that?

I went to the Fox News studios in Los Angeles when I broke the story of the Reuters Lebanon photo tampering, and after I did an interview with them (only a few seconds of it ever aired), one of the LA Fox bigwig producers wanted to meet me. So I went to his office and he was interviewing a woman who looked like a model; I waited for a while, then he just started talking to me, saying if I needed anything call him, etc. Gave me his card. Then as we were just making small talk the subject of why Fox’s coverage was different from the other news channels came up; I forget exactly how.

But I remember his comment: “because they’re all commies.” I kind of looked at him in a little bit of shock, expecting him to smile or laugh or something, but he was dead freaking serious.

I don’t know if all the execs at Fox are like this, but this guy was a definite ideologue of the far right variety. I found that exchange kind of disturbing and eye-opening.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:58:52am

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

Apart from angry partisan assumptions about the vouchers themselves how do you know that?

Because of the enormous difficulty in finding health insurance for people who are around the age of medicare but ineligible for it, like my friend Tran’s grandfather. Luckily, you can still buy into medicare even if you’re ineligible, because the alternatives are fantastically costly compared to it.

Why on earth are you using the ‘angry partisan’ meme? Do you honestly think I’m just coming at this from an emotional and partisan point of view, rather than having actually analyzed it?

Setting aside partisan anger and its impact on how we think-A voucher that paid Kaiser of Blue Cross to take as good care of my senior father as what he gets now is fine with me.

Speaking of dumb assumptions, can you cut out the ‘partisan anger’ assumption you’re making? Thanks.

Please, on your own, go to Kaiser or Blue Cross and price out the cost of an insurance package for a senior citizen that would provide equivalent care for medicare. You will find that they are far, far, far more expensive than medicare is. So, where are we going to get all this extra money? Medicare is already enormously expensive— to change it to private care would increase the price enormously.

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 11:59:05am

re: #24 allegro

Additionally, 20+% of those voucher dollars will be going to corporate profits and shareholders, not to medical care. Less than 3% of Medicare dollars go to overhead - actually I think it’s something like 1.4%.

Sh! You’ll ruin the surprise when it turns out that Dad’s voucher only pays for 33% of his medical costs in 2019.

Four More Tears Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:08:51pm

re: #18 spiderx

Politifact has lost some credibility. They’ve done a lot of damage considering FOX, being the propaganda outlet they are, will just use Politifact’s misleading report to say - “see? our viewers aren’t misinformed”

But if Fox gives Politifact that much weight, what does it say about all the times they caught Fox lying?

Feline Fearless Leader Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:11:39pm

re: #27 iossarian

Sh! You’ll ruin the surprise when it turns out that Dad’s voucher only pays for 33% of his medical costs in 2019.

But by 2019 we will have regressed to using leeches and bleeding to cure all ills by allowing the bad humors to leak out. Much cheaper than all these fancy anti-bio things that depend on high-falutin’ science!
//

Killgore Trout Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:11:53pm

re: #26 Obdicut

Please, on your own, go to Kaiser or Blue Cross and price out the cost of an insurance package for a senior citizen that would provide equivalent care for medicare. You will find that they are far, far, far more expensive than medicare is. So, where are we going to get all this extra money? Medicare is already enormously expensive— to change it to private care would increase the price enormously.

From what I recall from the last Kaiser price schedule it’s around $1,000 a month for those over 65. given the recent history that price will go up about 20-30% every year.

sagehen Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:15:02pm

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

Apart from angry partisan assumptions about the vouchers themselves how do you know that? Setting aside partisan anger and its impact on how we think-A voucher that paid Kaiser of Blue Cross to take as good care of my senior father as what he gets now is fine with me. The issue is quality of care not how we shuffle the money.

Now all I’m saying is neither assumption is smart right now. Assumptions at all are not the best plan. Lets see the vouchers. Let’s see what the Dems do with quality of care and affordability as opposing facts.

Ryan’s plan is specifically designed — Ryan cites this as a major reason to support his plan — to *not* increase the voucher amount quickly enough to keep up with the increase in health care costs and/or health insurance costs. He *specifically*, *deliberately* intends, for more and more of the cost to shift to the individual and away from the government.

So when the vouchers are up to $25k, and the cost of a decent policy is $45k, anybody without the extra 20 is SOL.

justaminute Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:15:24pm

I will say MSNBC is just like FOX when MSNBC has paid political shows starring many of the Democratic candidates. When the head of MSNBC becomes a trusted adviser to a state Governor (Ailes/Christie.) Or punish their #1 time-slot star (Olbermann) for contributing to political candidates. Or gives free promotion and time and resources for a democratic movement (Tea Party.) I could go on but I am short on time.

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:16:13pm

re: #26 Obdicut

“Angry partisan” is not a meme, it’s a factor that clouds conversations about policy. It’s a factor I sometimes have to cut through here sometimes and elsewhere. I’m just trying to filter that out as much as can be managed. Of course this anger cuts both ways as in Charles citation above “They are all commies”. How helpful is that to discourse? Kind of a conversation killer there.

And changing how medicare money is sent to medical providers is not whats key. The question that’s key IMO is it enough for quality of care and well managed for sustainability? IMO That’s the questions, not checks vs vouchers.

BTW my Dads doctor accepts medicare and Blue cross. Somehow. Is he underpaid my medicare? I have no idea. But we know medicare is gonna crash out for lack of funds at some point. Despite a lifetime of paying in.

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:17:02pm

re: #26 Obdicut

Is the voucher plan removing all the cost controls that go with medicare?

Kragar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:18:16pm

Man commits robbery, waits for cops, so he can get seen by doctor

James Verone said he hoped his $1 bank robbery would earn him a three-year jail sentence, during which he could undergo surgery on his back and his foot and have a painful lump on his chest diagnosed and treated. After that, the 59-year-old from Gastonia, N.C., would move to Myrtle Beach to collect his social security, he told local reporters.

But the charge Verone faces for the June 9 heist, larceny from a person, is unlikely to keep him behind bars for more than 12 months. He is being held in Gaston County Jail, where he has already been seen by several nurses, on a $2,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court June 28. And if his sentence is too short, Verone said he plans to rob again.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:19:18pm

re: #26 Obdicut

The numbers:

A 1,250 deductible private health care plan with 20% coinsurance with a $5,000 limit, plus high copays ($50 per office visit) was priced at $750 a month, with Tran’s grandfather’s lung issues specifically excluded, as well as any other ‘pre-existing conditions’.

Medicare part A and B combined was 600. The deductible for A is around $1,100, for B it’s $162. In addition, medicare negotiates for all services which are vastly less expensive under medicare than private insurance, meaning that paying the 20% coinsurance under medicare is far less expensive than paying it under private.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:20:19pm

re: #30 Killgore Trout

From what I recall from the last Kaiser price schedule it’s around $1,000 a month for those over 65. given the recent history that price will go up about 20-30% every year.

Yeah, see above. The lowest we found, with exemptions for what he actually needed it for most, was $750/month.

sagehen Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:21:51pm

re: #36 Obdicut

Part of why doctors are willing to accept Medicare patients — even at a lower fee schedule than they get from private insurance or self-pays — is the reliability. Medicare doesn’t jerk doctors around trying to disallow things, their fees are a known amount upfront, the paperwork is really simple, and they pay quickly.

Zathras Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:21:57pm

—although I carefully noted that these studies do not prove causation (e.g., that watching Fox News causes one to be more misinformed). The causal arrow could very well run the other way—believing wrong things could make one more likely to watch Fox News in the first place.

Which is the more damning—that Fox makes people stupid, or that it just attracts stupid people?

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:23:27pm

My lunch break is over…. GTG Just let me repeat myself for clarity-

The question that’s key IMO is it enough for quality of care and well managed for sustainability? IMO That’s the questions, not checks vs vouchers.

So any plan voucher based or not that comes up short should be opposed. Regardless of party, policy type or source.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:23:37pm

re: #33 Rightwingconspirator

“Angry partisan” is not a meme, it’s a factor that clouds conversations about policy. It’s a factor I sometimes have to cut through here sometimes and elsewhere.

Why are you addressing it to me, though? I’m not angry or partisan about this. Both my parents are well-provided for, even if medicare suddenly got taken away. I’m enough of a fatalist to not really worry about it for myself. So why are you applying the ‘angry partisan’ thing in this conversation?

And changing how medicare money is sent to medical providers is not whats key. The question that’s key IMO is it enough for quality of care and well managed for sustainability? IMO That’s the questions, not checks vs vouchers.

I’m sorry, I don’t think you understand the GOP’s proposal or what Medicare does. Medicare negotiates with providers to get low prices for services. That’s the main way it controls costs.

BTW my Dads doctor accepts medicare and Blue cross. Somehow. Is he underpaid my medicare? I have no idea. But we know medicare is gonna crash out for lack of funds at some point. Despite a lifetime of paying in.

No, we don’t ‘know’ that it’s going to crash, unless our entire healthcare system is. We have escalating health care costs; that is something affecting the private as well as the public health care. That is not a problem with medicare. That is a problem with health care in this country, and it would be exacerbating by turning the medicare system private. It would become more costly.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:24:58pm

re: #38 sagehen

Part of why doctors are willing to accept Medicare patients — even at a lower fee schedule than they get from private insurance or self-pays — is the reliability. Medicare doesn’t jerk doctors around trying to disallow things, their fees are a known amount upfront, the paperwork is really simple, and they pay quickly.

Yep. One of the great benefits of any single-payer system is the immense reduction in bureaucracy and paperwork, which always makes it funny when people talk about being worried about government bureaucracy getting involved.

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:26:25pm

re: #33 Rightwingconspirator

The question that’s key IMO is it enough for quality of care and well managed for sustainability?

Again, Ryan’s plan explicitly states that the vouchers will not keep pace with medical costs. That’s the whole point. It doesn’t do anything to reduce costs, it simply reduces spending. In fact, by stating that the value of the vouchers will increase more slowly than the rate of medical cost inflation, the purchasing power of the vouchers will decline even if costs come down. So there is in fact no incentive to reduce costs at all.

But we know medicare is gonna crash out for lack of funds at some point.

We don’t “know” this. Obviously it’ll happen if people keep electing Republicans. But there’s no particular reason we couldn’t fund Medicare adequately. Right-wing politicians state this as a foregone conclusion in order to justify their various schemes, but that doesn’t make it real.

spiderx Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:26:31pm

re: #28 JasonA

But if Fox gives Politifact that much weight, what does it say about all the times they caught Fox lying?

FOX just won’t mention that. Cuz that’s what propagandists do; they don’t mention information that makes them look bad.

justaminute Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:31:48pm

Why would anyone think think the Republicans are trying to “save’ Medicare and Social Security when they have been trying to do away with it since it’s inception?

RanchTooth Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:32:08pm

RON PAUL FANATICS SPAM AGAIN!

Time magazine has a GOP 2012 Bracket Up. And guess who’s the fav?!?!?!

[Link: www.time.com…]

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:36:54pm

re: #46 RanchTooth

RON PAUL FANATICS SPAM AGAIN!

Time magazine has a GOP 2012 Bracket Up. And guess who’s the fav?!?!?!

[Link: www.time.com…]

Luap Nor is a show pony.

Luap for show, Cain for dough. My money’s on the Georgia heavyweight and his intoxicating brand of bigotry-lite. I also have $10 riding on Michele Bachmann being busted in a Berkeley lesbian knitting circle before the end of the year.

Interesting Times Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:37:51pm

re: #45 justaminute

Why would anyone think think the Republicans are trying to “save’ Medicare and Social Security when they have been trying to do away with it since it’s inception?

You just don’t understand. They need to destroy it in order to save it.

Summer Seale Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:37:55pm

OT:

Really sad story about the result of anti-immigration laws in the country, specifically in Georgia:

Ga’s farm-labor crisis playing out as planned

BishopX Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:44:03pm

re: #49 Summer

Man the comments there are disgusting. I shouldn’t be surprised.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:45:51pm

re: #49 Summer

Wow, turns out illegal immigrants come here to actually work, not to start wildfires, engage in voter fraud, and bilk the medicare system. Who’d a thunk it?

Feline Fearless Leader Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:46:36pm

re: #51 Obdicut

Wow, turns out illegal immigrants come here to actually work, not to start wildfires, engage in voter fraud, and bilk the medicare system. Who’d a thunk it?

Yes, how dare they not fulfill all our sterotypes about them!
/

Winny Spencer Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:48:29pm

re: #47 iossarian

Luap Nor is a show pony.

Luap for show, Cain for dough. My money’s on the Georgia heavyweight and his intoxicating brand of bigotry-lite. I also have $10 riding on Michele Bachmann being busted in a Berkeley lesbian knitting circle before the end of the year.

Did you just call Cain a heavyweight?

Crikey.

darthstar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:49:04pm

re: #46 RanchTooth

RON PAUL FANATICS SPAM AGAIN!

Time magazine has a GOP 2012 Bracket Up. And guess who’s the fav?!?!?!

[Link: www.time.com…]

It doesn’t matter what the Republican majority wants…it’s what the few top Republicans want that their voters will get…which is why they’ll end up with Romney or T-Paw.

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:49:13pm

re: #53 Winny Spencer

Did you just call Cain a heavyweight?

Crikey.

I think he meant Newt.

Four More Tears Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:50:01pm

re: #49 Summer

OT:

Really sad story about the result of anti-immigration laws in the country, specifically in Georgia:

Ga’s farm-labor crisis playing out as planned

Huh. But I’ve been told they don’t contribute to society and just live off the teat of government programs…

darthstar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:50:08pm

re: #55 Cannadian Club Akbar

I think he meant Newt.

Poor Newt - he was trying to ignore questions about his extra million dollar credit line this morning and not doing a good job of changing the subject. It was most enjoyable.

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:50:51pm

re: #57 darthstar

Poor Newt - he was trying to ignore questions about his extra million dollar credit line this morning and not doing a good job of changing the subject. It was most enjoyable.

I’m sorry. Who won what baseball game?
//

Winny Spencer Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:51:02pm

re: #54 darthstar

It doesn’t matter what the Republican majority wants…it’s what the few top Republicans want that their voters will get…which is why they’ll end up with Romney or T-Paw.

The Republican majority does not want Luap Nor, only his cult followers do.

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:52:08pm

re: #59 Winny Spencer

The Republican majority does not want Luap Nor, only his cult followers do.

Paul has blimps. Blimps!!!

ProBosniaLiberal Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:52:46pm

Once FunGuerillaz daily summary comes out I’ll write a Page on Libya. Todya, I will also state what NATO’s strategy is, and its massive problems.

Cog Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:52:58pm

I am sorry, but when Jon Stewart tries to fact check anyone it is simply ridiculous. When he said Sunday that Republican partisan news organizations are nefarious and ill informed, but liberal partisan news organizations are just lazy and stupid, one I laughed at the absurdly selective characterization. Two, I flashed back to all the GWB insults that ran daily for almost a decade on his show. What were two of the insults he used most often? Can’t remember.

The correct answer Stewart, though you do not have enough personal integrity to admit it, is that both Fox and MSNBC, the NYT and the WT, the netroots and the wingnuts, are intrinsically biased. That being said, at least they are trying to adhere to some measure of journalistic credibility, which you do not. Increasingly when challenged on facts and context, the punchline comes for Stewart when he ties himself in verbal knots trying to claim that he is only a comedian.

That punchline draws a full belly laugh every time.

Winny Spencer Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:53:51pm

Btw, is anyone else still a Republican at heart?

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:54:38pm

re: #63 Winny Spencer

Btw, is anyone else still a Republican at heart?

What does that even mean?

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:55:43pm

re: #63 Winny Spencer

Btw, is anyone else still a Republican at heart?

I am center/right. Not a nutball like some on the right have become.

ProBosniaLiberal Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:56:22pm

re: #62 Cog

Aww, look, its a whining righty, all confused and upset.

Go back and play at RedState. :)

darthstar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:56:36pm

Holy crap…it’s National Chocolate Eclair Day! I need to stop on the way home so I can recognize this holy day of obligation.

Winny Spencer Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:57:09pm

re: #64 Obdicut

What does that even mean?

Supporting Mittens over Obama.

Four More Tears Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:57:36pm

re: #62 Cog

If you think he ever claimed to ONLY be a comedian then you haven’t been listening very carefully.

Feline Fearless Leader Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:57:51pm

re: #66 ProLifeLiberal

Aww, look, its a whining righty, all confused and upset.

Go back and play at RedState. :)

He can’t be one of those. His profile quotes MLK!
/

rwdflynavy Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:57:51pm

re: #62 CogHe lacks journalistic integrity because he is a comedian. Sometimes that gets lost in translation.

Nice try.

darthstar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:58:08pm

re: #62 Cog

He is only a comedian. Unfortunately for us, he is still a far more honest news source than much of the “not a comedian” news industry is.

Amory Blaine Wed, Jun 22, 2011 12:59:34pm

Not impressed with politifact. They have a local version running in the Milwaukee Journal and they interpret “facts” in a way that would make any big tobacco ad firm proud.

darthstar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:00:05pm

re: #69 JasonA

If you think he ever claimed to ONLY be a comedian then you haven’t been listening very carefully.

True…he’s “only a comedian” but that’s not all he claims to be…satirist (a la Mark Twain) comes to mind…and satirists have been important in a lot of non-comedic situations (see Jonathan Swift and his Modest Proposal, for example…that had English government people screaming in protest)

Cannadian Club Akbar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:01:34pm

bbiab.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:02:42pm

re: #68 Winny Spencer

Supporting Mittens over Obama.

That’s it? There’s no actual ideology or anything involved?

Interesting Times Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:04:17pm

re: #68 Winny Spencer

Supporting ~~Mittens~~ inaction on climate change, Planned Parenthood defunding, intrusive anti-choice laws, increased discrimination against gays, severely degraded environmental and consumer protection laws, elimination of the EPA, and destruction of medicare/medicaid/social security over Obama.

Sorry, but that’s what it ultimately comes down to. Mitt can only win the nomination by selling his soul to the same corporate masters and theocrats that own the rest of the GOP - their agenda will be his agenda.

Kragar Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:04:31pm

re: #63 Winny Spencer

Btw, is anyone else still a Republican at heart?

Trick question: Republicans don’t have hearts!
///

iossarian Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:06:00pm

re: #68 Winny Spencer

Supporting Mittens over Obama.

I think it depends on what you think the outcome of that kind of support would be.

At this point, voting Republican, for me, means you sign on to the following agenda (for starters - this is not even an exhaustive list):

- Medicare drastically reduced
- end of Medicaid
- Social Security drastically reduced
- End of legal abortion
- Decreased rights for minorities (gays, ethnic groups, the disabled etc.)
- No response to global warming
- Fewer controls on corporations
- Fewer checks and balances on executive power

It sucks for moderate Republicans, but that’s the reality of the GOP today.

Varek Raith Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:07:06pm

re: #49 Summer

OT:

Really sad story about the result of anti-immigration laws in the country, specifically in Georgia:

Ga’s farm-labor crisis playing out as planned

Facepalm.

Political Atheist Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:20:14pm

re: #22 Obdicut

I’m sorry, I don’t agree. I don’t think that MSNBC is in any way comparable to FOX in terms of adherence to and propagandizing of an ideology. I don’t think that saying that MSNBC is the same as FOX news makes much sense, either. They certainly have defended Obama and they certainly have been highly critical of the GOP. But saying they represent ‘the other ideology’ makes little sense. What ideology do they represent? FOX represents a revanchist conservatism, a highly regressive taxation system, a strong jingoistic nationalism, an anti-science lunacy.

The way that MSNBC is most similar to FOX is in format; aside from Maddow, very little of their critique and commentary is well-sourced, and tends towards the emotional appeal.

But they’re nowhere, at all, near the depth of outright lies that FOX is. And Maddow, left-leaning as she is, is probably the most responsible journalist around in making her arguments and giving opponents time to speak.

I made no claim MSNBC is as misleading. Let me reign in your interpretation of my comment a little closer to my intent-

I was referring to what J.S. had referred to-about MSNBC and the
MSNBC is in active pursuit of an ideological segment of the audience. Obviously the left side of the aisle. From Dems to Greens. Fox obviously pursues the right. From Republican to Libertarian and beyond. That in particular is the similarity I refer to. I don’t think CNN or BBC does that at all. Which BTW is worth noting in terms of viewing decisions.

sagehen Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:20:36pm

re: #63 Winny Spencer

Btw, is anyone else still a Republican at heart?

If you’re talking Rockefeller Republicans, Eisenhower Republicans, absolutely. To the bone.

If you mean today’s GOP… so very not.

Feline Fearless Leader Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:21:15pm

re: #79 iossarian

I think it depends on what you think the outcome of that kind of support would be.

At this point, voting Republican, for me, means you sign on to the following agenda (for starters - this is not even an exhaustive list):

- Medicare drastically reduced
- end of Medicaid
- Social Security drastically reduced
- End of legal abortion
- Decreased rights for minorities (gays, ethnic groups, the disabled etc.)
- No response to global warming
- Fewer controls on corporations
- Fewer checks and balances on executive power

It sucks for moderate Republicans, but that’s the reality of the GOP today.

I would half-expect a more aggressive military posture towards the world as well once a non-Democrat is in the White House. Or at a minimum agitation that way in the halls of Congress.*

* - This assumes further GOP gains there in addition to getting the Presidency.

lawhawk Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:24:28pm

re: #73 Amory Blaine

I’ve got a similar beef with the PolifactNJ, where they make the call on various utterances by Gov. Christie and others - and it seems that they go out of their way to find Christie making half lies/truths, rather than straight up findings on the facts.

Martinsmithy Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:26:56pm

And what can we do about Fox News’ consistently outrageous behavior?

As far as the government is concerned, absolutely nothing. And that’s the way it should be.

As far as we citizens, who know the truth, we need to continually expose and confront these lying liars.

austin_blue Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:30:37pm

re: #49 Summer

OT:

Really sad story about the result of anti-immigration laws in the country, specifically in Georgia:

Ga’s farm-labor crisis playing out as planned

Thanks for the post! Did you read the comments?

“This is what happens when you vote for Teabilly’s who actually do what the say they were going to do.”

mr.fusion Wed, Jun 22, 2011 1:49:56pm

re: #84 lawhawk

I’ve got a similar beef with the PolifactNJ, where they make the call on various utterances by Gov. Christie and others - and it seems that they go out of their way to find Christie making half lies/truths, rather than straight up findings on the facts.

As much as I appreciate what they do, I have some fundamental problems with politifact.

First, something is either true or it isn’t. I don’t like these “half-trues” or “barely-trues.”

Here’s a perfect example:

Link

“Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare.”

-Mitt Romney

That quote is either true or it isn’t. Now, Mitt isn’t just saying what he’s saying….he’s also trying to compare Health Care Reform (Obamacare) and the money it saves Medicare with the voucher program in the Ryan Plan. Mitt saying “it takes” instead of “it saves” is a blatant lie, and Politifact has given him license to continue on with that claim.

Now, my biggest complaint about Politifact is the way that they choose what to fact check. In my opinion they are completely aware of the completely unfair reputation of their parent publication (St Petersburg Times) as a liberal commie rag……and it affects the way they choose the quotes they check.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 2:00:14pm

re: #81 Rightwingconspirator

Left and right don’t exist. They’re totally incoherent. That’s my point; I can point out actual ideologies that FOX spreads— that government is always bad, that progressive taxation is a burden on the rich, that trickle-down economics work, that voter fraud is a bigger problem than disenfranchisement, that seperation of church and state should be weakened.

There is nothing like that on the MSNBC side. There is no coherent ideology.

To put it another way: MSNBC is partisan towards Obama and the administration. FOX is partisan not just to the GOP, but to the width and breadth of revanchist, radical ‘conservatives’, and the ideologies they espouse.

planetdan Wed, Jun 22, 2011 2:01:15pm

Hmm….why not simply ASK JON STEWART to explain what he meant by his original comment. It seems strange for everyone to weigh in on what they THOUGHT he might have meant, or might have been referring to, when all we have do do is ask him!

Obdicut Wed, Jun 22, 2011 2:10:10pm

re: #89 planetdan

I just did. He said I was right.

I wasn’t actually saying what he meant, of course, which makes that kind of odd.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud