A while back I explained why “fact-checks” such as Politifact should be viewed with suspicion. The “facts” may be no more than the reporter’s opinion dressed up with factual-sounding language.
Here’s another example of Politifact’s ability to contort the truth so it appears false. In this case, the target of Politifact’s disinformation is Rand Paul, as the Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway explains:
Here’s what Rand Paul said: “The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year.”
Here are the facts: “Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.”
Here’s how Politifact rated Rand Paul’s statement: “False.”
Read Hemingway’s entire piece to see what mental gymnastics PolitiFact uses to make a factual statement seem false.
The proliferation of self-proclaimed fact-checks is really not about facts, it’s about marketing. Fact checks give the appearance of rigor without actually requiring it.
When someone says “trust me,” that’s the time to be on guard, including when that someone is a journalist.
Caveat lector.
H/t to Hoystory for pointing this out.
Comments 14
Just curious, Brad – when asked how much you make a year, do you include benefits?
Author
Yes, I do.
Interesting.
Perhaps Politifact should’ve given Rand Paul a “needs qualification” as opposed to a false. When I hear “makes” I think in terms of salary. That might just be because I’ve only worked for small business that tend not to offer much in terms of benefits and certainly don’t provide a hard number up front.
When asked what my “salary” was, I always included my benefits, because as a self employed individual, I didn’t have any!
Brad:
Curious if you agree with me that the “Gold Standard”
on fact-checking has been set by Barbara and David
Mikkelson at their indispensable, “Urban Legends”
website?
http://www.snopes.com/info/search/search.asp
Like quality baseball umpires, they calmly parse
through complex e-mail rumors, thumbing most
of them “out” at the plate, but ruling others “safe”
and factual.
Plenty of those rumors are political. The Mikkelsons
are even-handed in sticking to the truth, and coming
down with what can be established.
Anyone wanting to get a post-grad education on
how to really check facts, ought to consult Urban
Legends to learn how it is really done.
Author
Jim,
Yes, I agree in your praise of Snopes. Your point is very apt. Snopes is the original fact-check, and sites like Politifact are wannabes. And locally, Voice of San Diego’s fact check is sub-optimal. While I like much about the site, I’ve learned that some reporters can’t be trusted to do accurate fact-checks. VOSD’s editors need to exercise some quality control, even if it cuts down on their fact-checks’ (annoying) cuteness factor.
Author
Dave, I think you are correct about the differing perspectives, which may be in part to age differences. For me and many others, benefits are huge — especially health care. (The importance of that was driven home to me forcefully in August when I had my heart attack). Whenever someone asks about my pay, the nominal wages come first, but the conversation always then shifts to benefits.
Trust me on this, young ‘un — the older you get, the more important health care and other benefits will become.
Don’t misunderstand me, Brad. Health coverage is probably the primary reason I work for a company full time rather than freelance or on contract. I just couldn’t tell you how much it’s worth.
I’ll have more on this shortly, but San Diegans need to see this now. It’s yet another telling reason why we need to contract out every possible city function.
These myriad city employee benefits are a Gordian Knot that cannot be untied. We need to cut through them with an ax. Sever our city employees — as many and as soon as possible.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/01/city-retirees-get-bonus-checks/
FRONT PAGE TOP U-T HEADLINE:
City retirees get bonus checks averaging $784 as “13th check”
Re: Benefits… The value to the employee of health coverage is different than the cost to the employer. The value is indeterminate, certainly in advance. But the cost to the employer, and therefore the amount of the benefit provided to the employee, is the amount of the insurance premium and any other benefit paid by the employer. A company knows that cost, whether they tell an employee what it is or not. In the public sector total compensation is increasingly becoming a known, divulged number, as it should be.
Author
That’s the funny thing about insurance, health or otherwise, you don’t want to be in a position of finding out how valuable it is!
Of course, there is a non-trivial distinction between the average cost it takes to provide health insurance and other benefits — which is what Rand Paul cited — and its potential value to any individual person. The average cost of benefits is a better yardstick if you’re comparing total compensation, because that number is easier to get and more pertinent to an employer’s expenses.
Sorry, Brad and Barry. All I meant by value is the dollar amount you’d tack on to the total compensation.
I think pensions are the more shocking issue. I don’t think younger generations have any idea what a pension is. I certainly don’t have any expectation of collecting one.
I think Paul’s statement does need qualification. The compensation disparity isn’t simply a matter of the government paying too much–it’s also employers paying too little.
As I wrote about during the HCR debate: Darrell Issa had a proposal to force all employers who pay minimum wage to also offer health insurance. That legislation would bring up the private sector end of equation significantly.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/print-article-7434-print.html
American Journalism Review article on “The Fact-Checking Explosion” with a Voice of San Diego mention.
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4980
Author
Thank you, Dave. I’m reading it now.