PolitiFact and the scam of neutral expertise

Salon by Glenn Greenwald | Jan. 1, 2012 (Opinion)

The fact-checking site PolitiFact serves a valuable purpose when it actually performs its stated function: to “help you find the truth in American politics” by “fact-check[íng] statements” from political and media figures. But it undermines its own credibility when it purports to resolve subjective disputes of political opinion under the guise of objective expertise. That’s precisely what it did yesterday in this incredibly sloppy and often ... Full Story »

Posted by Doug Greer - via Dan Gillmor, Google News (Fact Check)

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics, Media
Topics: Journalism, Presidential Election 2012
Stats Help
# Tweets: 103 (as of 2011-12-12)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Doug Greer - Dec 5, 2011 - 6:11 PM PST
Reviewed by: Doug Greer (review), Bob Herrschaft (review), Fabrice Florin (review), Dwight Rousu (review), Randy Morrow (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Jan 1, 2012 - 4:56 PM PST

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
4.7
 by Dwight Rousu - Jan. 2, 2012

An excellent focused insight into blatant bias in a PolitiFact faux declaration of falsehood.

The focus is excellent, but omits discussion of the political bias of the executives of PolitiFact that motivates them to allow the use of biased "experts" to condemn truth-speakers. Is that bias due to the ingrained political views of the financiers and editors, or is it due to the systemic disinformation in the mainstream corporate media which deludes much of the low information public? The 1st requires house cleaning; the 2nd needs more factchecking work that is actually based upon facts.

The notion that these two individuals — or anyone like them — are entitled to be treated as neutral, ideology-free experts is what is “preposterous nonsense.” But ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Randy Morrow
4.2
 by Randy Morrow - Jan. 2, 2012

The notion that these two individuals — or anyone like them — are entitled to be treated as neutral, ideology-free experts is what is “preposterous nonsense.” But ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Bob Herrschaft
4.4
 by Bob Herrschaft - Jan. 2, 2012

.."contrived neutrality" is, I believe, an accurate description

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Fabrice Florin
3.9
 by Fabrice Florin - Jan. 1, 2012
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Doug Greer
4.9
 by Doug Greer - Jan. 1, 2012

This article goes to the heart of the problems with establishment journalism. Too many corporate journalists are fooled into using hard-core ideologues as objective experts.

PolitiFact seems unaware of the fact that the Executive Branch doesn’t determine what the law means. Just because Obama lawyers argue that the 2001 More »

Doug posted this story.
See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.3

Good
from 5 reviews (66% confidence)
Quality
4.4
Facts
4.3
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.5
Insight
4.5
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.2
Context
4.2
Depth
3.5
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
4.0
Originality
5.0
Relevance
4.8
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
3.9
Recommendation
4.2
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • Paul C. Tash  | Times Publishing Inc. Pending

    tampabay.com | Jan. 2, 2012
    Posted by Dwight Rousu
    See Reviews »
    • Add a related link