Posted on 01/30/2023 8:13:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Politifact is biased. All news sources are biased to some extent (I make no bones about being a conservative, although do my best to stick to the facts), although some are better about trying to be open and fair than others.
Politifact? Browsing their site I have concluded that while they may think they are fair, they don’t come close.
The first “fact check is a doozy, since their “Truth o Meter” and the content of their “analysis” contradict each other. They rate a claim “false” while their explanation for coming to the conclusion shows that it is, in fact, true. They just disagree with the implication.
The claim is manifestly true. The Biden Administration is making a big push for “gender-affirming care,” including surgeries, for teens and young adults. Not only do they support the policy, they actively push it as a priority. This is indisputable. And, ironically, Politifact doesn’t even dispute it; they simply downplay it.
Their quickie analysis:
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
- A radio ad asserts that a Biden administration policy about gender-affirming care promotes surgery on teens and young adults that involves removing breasts and genitals.
- The White House characterizes the policy as a civil rights protection and a means to ensure that this vulnerable population has access to an array of health care services.
- Though medical guidelines do allow for such surgeries on young adults, experts said they continue to be rare. They also did not consider the policy the equivalent of promoting these procedures.
So the claims are true, but the policy is a good thing according to the Biden Administration. Hence the claim is actually “False.”
That is a very interesting standard for determining truth. Factually correct, but since you are opposed to Biden you are a liar. Bigot! Cutting off body parts of kids is a good thing!
OK.
“Joe Biden and the New Left even promote surgery on teens and young adults, removing breasts and genitals,” the ad claims.
With a man’s voice speaking over ominous music, the ad says the White House is pushing boys to appear more feminine by taking estrogen and girls to grow facial hair by taking testosterone. The ad also suggests Democrats are pushing puberty blockers “to keep kids from developing into normal men and women.”
Every word of this is 100% true. Indisputably so. Politifact doesn’t even dispute it.
The Biden administration was asked about the ad in a White House briefing, and spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said simply: “Transgender rights are indeed human rights.”
HHS declined to explain its position on gender-affirming surgeries but released a statement to KHN describing what spokesperson Adam Sarvana called “a disturbing wave of radical attacks on some of our country’s most vulnerable children.”
“The Biden-Harris administration trusts parents, but we are unfortunately seeing interference in people’s medical decisions that jeopardizes potentially life-saving care,” he said.
The message is unequivocal support for gender-affirming care, especially to address the high rate of suicide among trans teens. One White House fact sheet says the administration is “confirming the positive impact of gender affirming care on youth mental health.” The White House frames access to care as a civil right for transgender people.
The White House statements largely echo those of leading medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. The professional association representing 67,000 pediatricians has similarly been accused of pushing gender-affirming care, but Dr. Moira Szilagyi, the academy’s president, has been fending off what she calls “extremists.”
So what we have here is a dispute about the wisdom of a policy, not regarding facts. This is a “fact check,” claiming to be unbiased and nonpartisan. Every single word, and every assertion in the radio ad is true. Politifact doesn’t even dispute it with a single fact. Not one.
But they rate the factual claims “false.” Just who is spreading disinformation here?
What about this “fact check?”
Again, the assertion that is being “fact-checked” is indisputably true, if arguably incomplete if any of the claims about anthropogenic climate change are true, as some may be. This particular claim is true, and obviously so unless you know nothing about geology and climate. Much of the North American continent was shaped largely by the ice age and the melting of the glaciers. The Great Lakes are one feature that dominates the center of the continent solely due to the ice age. Geologically they are young.
Here is the text they refer to and dispute:
Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can be tracked through out prehistoric eras.
After the late Triassic period earth experienced up to 6 ice ages in total from what scientists hypothesize was directly contributed to low solar flare activities starting as far back as five million years ago. Long before humans inhabited the earth.
Where are all the paleontologists on this? I studied paleontology my entire childhood and up through high school this used to be elementary information how the f&ck did everyone get so f&cking stupid.
Yes the planet is changing but that’s a constant part of life on this earth which carbon dating estimates is 4.543 BILLION YEARS OLD
Human beings live on the continent because of a land bridge linking Asia and North America due to sea levels hundreds of feet lower than exist today–only a few thousand years ago. Has Politifact heard nothing of glacial cycles? The climate is indisputably changing and has for billions of years. The rise and fall of empires are directly linked to climate changes, as was the invention of agriculture at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago.
“Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can be tracked throughout prehistoric eras,” the caption on the Jan. 17 Instagram post says.
The caption also claims that several ice ages during the late Triassic period prove Earth’s changing climate is a naturally occurring “constant part of life.”
Both of these statements are in fact true. And as you can see the particular “false” claim is that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon…” What about this statement is false? The implication? Perhaps, perhaps not. But rating a statement of fact as false is a definitive statement of fact, and in this case, it is Politifact making a false claim.
Wowza. That sure looks like the climate is changing, and further, it sure looks like we are still in a natural warming cycle. 12 degrees celsius in a few thousand years sure makes a 1 or 2-degree celsius change that may be due to human influence look modest, not particularly scary. Particularly when a bit over 100,000 years ago the temperature excursion from 0 was twice as much as today–8 degrees celsius higher than average compared to 4 degrees today.
Here’s a chart of sea levels and how they have changed over time. Sea levels have risen about 30 feet during the period when human beings have been developing civilizations over the past 10,000 years.
Hmm. It sure looks to me like Politifact’s fact-checkers are less educated than the average 5-year-old who loves dinosaurs, who lived in a vastly warmer world than today, or they are doing their best to deceive their readers. I hope it is the latter because the former is scarier.
Basically, Politifact’s problem is not with the facts, but the inferences people may draw from them. That is called partisanship–promoting a particular interpretation of facts–while denying that indisputable facts are correct. This is, to put it kindly, sophistry. The particular Instagram post set them off because the image accompanying the text they claim is false asserts that the Elite is pushing climate change hysteria to control people.
That too is true. But not provably so as a fact. It is simply a strong inference derived from their behavior and statements.
Politifact is, literally, misinforming you. Asserting the opposite of the truth in order to convince you of their position.
The opinions they are trying to bolster are defensible (I disagree entirely with the first and have argued the point many times), but their attacks on the facts are false. They are misleading people. Telling falsehoods.
It’s too bad, since lots of falsehoods are spread in the world; I have been taken in by them and would love a reliable source where honest people do their best to sort out fact from fiction. I would like it better if they stuck to the facts rather than trying to push a narrative.
But Politifact is not that source. They are clearly pushing actual falsehoods in service of a narrative. It is obvious enough to be embarrassing.
My rating on Politifact? Pants on Fire.
All news media, TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Bloggers, etc.
exist for one purpose only;
and that purpose is to sell advertising.
Such as it ever was...
C’mon. Paging the Captain Obvious picture.
Politifact has been known, for many years now, to be political site, intended to favor democrats, no matter what the issue, but, they do sometimes allow a bit of the truth to come out, just to try to seem fair.
I gave up on reading anything from them as soon as I noticed the highly partisan flavor to their ‘analysis’, and that was over a decade ago.
Those aren’t facts, they’re politifacts.
What’s next? Are we going to find out that George Soros is a leftist?
“Politifact is dishonest. Browsing their site, I have concluded that while they may think they are fair, they don’t come close.”
If Polifact had been around when I was 5 years old, I would have concluded the same. But for this author, glad he finally came around, and does this mean he now doubts them on Trump/Russia ‘collusion’?
This statement contains an egregious factual error!
Carbon Dating cannot be used to date anything older than, say, 100,000 years old. (I learned this fact back in the 1970s, when I was attending elementary school - so there may have been technical improvements since then, and it might now be possible to date objects which are somewhat older.)
C-14 is a radioactive isotope of Carbon, with a half-life of approx. 5,700 years. C-14 in our atmosphere is formed chiefly through the action of cosmic rays on Nitrogen. After formation, the C-14 is available for absorption by living creatures. The premise is that, when an organism dies, it ceases absorbing C-14 from the environment, so from that moment on, the amount of C-14 in the organism's body begins decreasing solely through radioactive decay, which can thus be used as a sort of clock to time its age.
The age of the Earth - approx. 4.5 billion years - is determined using a number of other methods, including measuring the radioactive decay of other isotopes (e.g., of Uranium) - but most certainly NOT by examining the decay of C-14.
Regards,
I’m actually surprised that Politifact just doesn’t say that every true statement that they disagree with is “racist” or “anti-Semitic” which usually works and ends any discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.