The big picture story from FactCheck and similar services is that many(most?) politicians spin, embellish, fabricate and BS all the time. It can reasonably be argued that some of the facts presented in this piece are not all that important, but an impartial purveyor of facts is a valuable resource during these dark days of the national campaigns.

This is solid, but doesn't give the reader a sense of how significant these errors are compared to truth stretching in other debates, or on the Republican side.

This seems to be a "gotcha" type article. Viveca Novak has had some credibility issues herself. While the Biden comments were off the mark - and he should have known better - the other instances cited were making mountains out of molehills and lacking in context. Good grief, take a look at the decay in CPSC figures on the chaart under Republican administrations vs. Clinton. The press has a tendency to nitpick Democratic candidates while allowing Republicans to get away with whoppers. I have serious questions about the neutrality of FactCheck in general.

While it is important for organizations like FactCheck.org and, for example, David Brock's MediaMatters.org to keep a close eye on politicians and the media, particularly in this era of wild and wooly lies and fabrications, in the case of the "debates" staged on TV and radio during this extraordinarily extended presidential election season, the public is justifiably NOT MUCH INTERESTED. The only people closely following the "debates" on TV (let alone the relative obscurity of radio) are pundits and professional political camp followers. When average people on the street are interviewed, they often tend to shrug and admit to their ignorance as to the identities of the candidates or their positions. Given the extremist policies of ... More »