Slashdot Mirror

Ah, and how lucrative is it to misrepresent [politifact.com] information?

Yes, sure. According to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture is incredibly efficient... Verified by that most objective of sources known as "Politifact".

or do you realize now, that you've been informed of the misapprehensions of your own source

Bullshit.

Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times, which has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Right wing sites throw around its somewhat loose ties to Clinton Foundation donors, which you may or may not find compelling (I don't). There's also a whole (right wing) site devoted to calling out stuff politifact does, http://www.politifactbias.com/ . Those claims at least can be accepted or rejected on a case-by-case basis.

When a site claims to be neutral or know facts, even if it is launched and initially operated with the BEST of intentions, there's a big chance it will become biased via some method or other, soon enough.

I was hoping that you were aiming for Funny with these comments. I am fearful that you actually believe it. "scores from nonpartisan PolitiFact" (me: "haha good one") "most truthful candidate of all, excepting only Barack Obama." (me "omg they're serious") http://www.politifactbias.com/...

Your continual linking to politifact either shows that you are low information or suffering from left wing confirmation bias. It's well known that politifact is a front website for a leftwing newspaper set up similar to the way Media Matters is searching for "truth" in journalism.

Politifact's misrepresentations are well documented. http://www.politifactbias.com/

http://www.politifactbias.com/

This is a great site for cross checking / validating for politifact bias.

It's strongly conservative biased so it's only helpful for conservative statements.

Those I checked seemed pretty reasonable. On example being where Obama called Bengazi a terrorist act- Romney later said Obama said Bengazi was a terrorist incident (or an incident of terrorism) and politifact jumped all over it as a false statement by Romney since "act" is different than "incident". Politifact seemed pretty biased in that case (quibbling).

However- It only shows about 7% of politifacts ratings of falsehoods are dubious. So about 93% of the time, politifact gets it right.

More tricky is the failure to rate true statements. Clearly any statement which is true but non-controversial won't be fact checked ("The sky is blue! I'm pro-american!"). And it's proving a negative (They DIDN'T choose to rate this controversial and true statement by my candidate so he looks less truthful!).

Anyway, Politifactbias.com is one way to cross check Politifact.com.

And ironically shows politifact bias is fairly small (7% of statements found to be incorrect/biased by a hostile audience of politifactbias.com users).

Yeah, check Politifact. Hilarious. http://www.politifactbias.com/

Up to 2011, they found Republicans to be lying 119 times to 13 for Democrats.

"Lying" isn't anywhere on their scale, so I don't know what you're talking about. And even if there's some truth to your numbers, there's no reason to assume those figures prove a bias. It's quite possible that Republicans were making many more inaccurate statements to large audiences than Dems during a given time-frame.

Usually Politifact engages in strawman attacks where they dismiss the actual language the speaker used and instead substitute their own language

I've never seen that happen, and you've provided not a single example.

Try looking at http://www.politifactbias.com/

Taking a quick look at their site, they mostly link to incredibly partisan opinion pieces that are easy to tear apart, and make many accusations that don't hold up to scrutiny, and look like the rantings of someone with poor reading comprehension that is easily confused. In reality, I have no doubt it's entirely willful ignorance.

How about actually getting a fair and reasonably comprehensive assessment from an unbiased source? Crazy, right?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Politifact is "reasonably comprehensive" and "unbiased"???? Damn! What are you smoking, we'd all like to know cuz that shit must be good!

Up to 2011, they found Republicans to be lying 119 times to 13 for Democrats. Usually Politifact engages in strawman attacks where they dismiss the actual language the speaker used and instead substitute their own language (which would in-fact be false), then label the speaker's claim as false. Try looking at http://www.politifactbias.com/