Quantcast

Comments about ‘Fact-checkers tackle Mitt Romney's RNC speech; fact-checker-checkers caution readers’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 31 2012 4:54 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I hope the "fact checkers" are getting geared up to scrutinize every word Obama or Biden speaks between now and November 6th.

Given their past records for saying one thing and doing the exact opposite, or making no sense at all, respectively, the fact checkers will indeed be working overtime to bring their prevarications and malapropisms to the public's attention via the ever vigilant news media.

Yeah, right. The liberal bias in most of the media is blindingly obvious to those who pay attention, but sadly remains undetected by millions of voters who pay scant attention to politics or politicians. They will continue to proclaim as false much of what Romney or Ryan say, regardless of the truth.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

So, the premise is that the definition of "apology" is subjective, suggesting that the Fact checker sites may be biased, and then you cite 4 pages of Karl Rove's opinion as a rebuttal?

How about doing some real fact checking of your own instead of playing the exact same game you criticize in your article.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

And, facts do have degrees of truth or require context to be fully understood.

Facts. Ronald Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 28%.

Today's tax rate is 35% for the top earners.
Reagan's tax rates are lower than today's.

All factually correct statements.

However, Reagan's top rate kicked in at earnings of $30,000.

Today's rate of 35% starts on earnings well over $350,000.

So, the rate is only one piece of pertinent information.

In reality, going back to Reagan's Tax rate, with associated Tax brackets would be a HUGE tax increase.

Fact. Today's EFFECTIVE Federal Income Tax rates are lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. (and quite a bit lower, at that)

While we are at it, Today's EFFECTIVE Corporate tax rate is also much lower than it was under Reagan.

Fact check THAT!!

one old man
Ogden, UT

Oh, so the standard bearer of truth is none other than one of the most crooked political hacks in the history of America --- Karl Rove?

Yeah.

Sheeeesh!

staypuffinpc
Provo, UT

I'm glad to have seen this article appear. Last night, I read the piece in the NYT about Ryan "throwing the facts out the window" in which they broke down his lies one by one. But, "fact" after fact, they failed to actually address any facts. It was an obvious attack on opinion and character more than anything. In some instances, they claimed Ryan was outright lying when, in their own analysis, he was telling the truth. What they really should have said was that, though truthful, Ryan was disingenuous in criticizing Obama for allowing a committee to fail when Ryan was part of the committee and that his actions allowed it to fail. Nothing he stated was false, though it was certainly a bit disingenuous. Funny thing is, by referring to opinion and grandstanding as facts, the NYT writer committed the very act he was really criticizing--disingenuity!

BarkforSark
PROVO, UT

I'm disappointed because when I first discovered Politifact, I thought, "This is a great idea. Now I'll know what's true and what's not." But then I discovered that they weren't checking "facts," but rather "opinions." Romney's opinion is that Obama embarked on an apology tour, and he bases that opinion on Obama's own actions and words. The only way you can assign a "true" or "false" rating to his opinion is by looking at what it's based on, and whether it's reasonable for the average person to conclude the same. I think there are more than enough people who look at what Obama said and did and consider him to be "apologizing," whether he actually used the word "apologize" or not. So how can you say Romney's claim deserves a "false," much less "pants on fire" rating. All you're saying is that you disagree with how he has come to his opinion, but that's not being a "fact" checker.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

staypuffinpc, far more than just NYT called Ryan's speech full of falsehoods, including Fox News.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

It's not a lie, if you believe it (George Costanza)...

easily morphs into...

romney campaign vowing...

we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

Paul Ryan got a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact for claiming that Obama promised that government intervention would keep open the GM plant in Janesville, WI. His claim was deemed False because Politifact found that Obama pledged to keep the plant "viable," not "open."

This clearly show the bias of Politifact, and the insanely idiotic logic used to label Republicans as liars. It renders Politifact entirely intellectually unreliable as a resource for a rational debate. The "Pants on Fire" rating over the Apology Tour is another excellent example of their obvious agenda and lack of credibility.

Seems we need a fact checker for the fact checkers.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the GM plant in Janesville could be shut down, and still "viable."

Jack
Aurora, CO

@DanO, it wasn't "Fox News", it was a commentator, a liberal commentator who labeled the speech "full of lies". The fact that she contributes to the Fox News Channel is relevant only in that she voiced her opinion there, it doesn't constitute an indictment of Ryan by Fox News.

rightascension
Provo, UT

With this article, the Deseret News obsession with Romney has become laughable. I take from this article so0called that there are no facts just opinions. I also take from this piece that we must accept whatever the USA does as necessary, so it does not apologize. If I were to take those positions with my relatives, they would dismiss me as hogwash.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

The biggest value I find with fact-checkers is the research and information they provide on the topics/subjects they are fact-checking, including links to the information. They take the time to dig up the Bureau of Labor statistics or the text of the entire speech that newspapers are too lazy to report.

Deseret News mentions Robert Rector as a "welfare expert" but doesn't identify that he is a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. This is what passes as "fact-checking" by Rector:

Rector: "Moreover, HHS has made it clear that it will not accept waivers for new conservative policies. The agency’s guidance states that it will not approve policy initiatives that are “likely to reduce access to aid.” Translation: HHS will oppose any policy that reduces welfare caseloads. “

This is what the HHS policy actually states:
“The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families.”

Obama's remarks at various stops around the world could just as easily be framed as "criticizing" the countries he visits.

On the other hand
Spanish Fork, UT

George W. Bush didn't know the first thing about diplomacy. He seemed not to realize that the United States had ever had allies, or that we needed any (other than Israel, of course). Barack Obama has had to clean up the mess Bush made, and he has done a pretty good job. Romney's repeated criticism of Obama's efforts to restore goodwill toward the US, together with Romney's own comments and actions during his recent tour abroad, strongly suggest he hails from the Bush school of foreign policy and that he would undo a lot of the good that Obama has been able to accomplish with our foreign allies.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

DSB - he couldn't keep the plant viable because it closed before he came into office. The transition between the Bush and Obama ears were actually quit presidential, and actually Bush still has maintained a good sense of dignity here and refused to be pulled into the ugliness game going on.

But bottom line, once a plant is closed, it is pretty hard to keep it viable. What Obama did do was keep the plants at both GM and Chrysler open while Romney preferred to have the companies offered up to investment bankers (the very same ones we tax payers were feed tax dollars to to keep themselves above water) to be bought, sliced up, and dissected.

Oh, and did Ryan also let everyone know that while he claims he was against TARP, he himself put in request for TARP funds for companies in his own district. Worked really good... you can complain all you want and yet still take advantage of the program.... Sounds like another group I know.

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

@UtahBlueDevil - you can read it yourself at Politifact:

"...the article reported that Obama, who later provided an $80 billion auto bailout, had pledged to help keep the Janesville plant and others like it "viable." That's not quite the same thing as pledging keep the Janesville plant open. We find nothing in the article that he explicitly promised to keep it open."

Ridiculously illogical by any standard, exposing Politifact's bias and agenda. I will admit my mistake, however, as they rated Ryan's comments "False," and not "Pants on Fire."

Obama assured the people of Janesville that the bailouts would keep them "viable," but apparently not "open." Sounds like Obama making promises, or pledges, that he couldn't necessarily keep even if he wanted to. And, that his hope for Janesville, as with unemployment numbers, green industries, and bailout results, have no basis in reality.

With Obama as President, coal mining area and towns that relied on NASA also found out how Obama keeps his promises. He doesn't. When he's campaigning, he'll say anything with no thought of ability or intention to follow through.

silo
Sandy, UT

DSB

From Politifact...

"and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office."

in case you missed it...

"and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office."

The plant was closed before Obama even had a chance to do anything to prevent it's closing. Perhaps Ryan should take that up with former President Bush?

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

@silo - in case you missed it, from Politifact, candidate Obama made "a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open."

Also, in case you missed it from my prior post:

"Obama assured the people of Janesville that the bailouts would keep them 'viable,' but apparently not 'open.'"

To make it simpler for you to understand, Obama made assurances to people that proved to be wrong. The bailouts from Bush, that Obama said would keep the plant open or viable, and then implemented as President, neither kept the Janesville plant open, nor did they cause the plant to re-open, or become viable or any other terminology that means "we're employing people," when he became President.

False assurances based on unfounded hope, just like most of Obama's promises.

DavidNL
Holladay, UT

Who wants facts anyway, right? "The truth" is too complicated while opinions, strong assertions, confident proclamations, and "being right" is really -- winning at any cost -- is what matters most, especially in politics. So this is what politicians give us -- neat, tidy, easily digestible bits of info with an emotional center. Soundbites. Even if we could -- or would -- search for "political truth", if it rocked our boat too much, where would that leave us???

Probably looking for the next soundbite to make it all good again.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

All I can say is that I remember Obama going on his apology tour.
If liberals want to call it something else; well, that is their prerogative. Calling it an apology tour is my prerogative.

Most so called "Fact Checking" organizations lean to the left. They are part of the propaganda machine.

BTW: I am so sorry that liberals don't like Karl Rove. Bet the feeling is mutual.

Tyler Ray
Taylorsville, UT

President Obama's statements were more than apologetic, they were contradictory and weak. How many "buts" were in those examples. he was doing too much addressing what he felt were imperfections of America's policies and decisions and instilled less confidence in America than anything. Stop focusing on the past and show what the future will bring. typical Obama: Blame past presidencts, the other party, Congress, etc. we've heard it for four years. Contrast that with Romney's message. We gave Obama a chance, he didn't deliver. let's move forward.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments