Well, when you irk both the conservatives and the liberals, you must be doing something very right or something very wrong. 

Politifact got a Pulitzer for its researching so I’m more or less inclined to defer to them until they are yelled at by more then a pundent 

Politifact might want to insure the truth-o-meter.  If they keep checking MSNBC’s “facts”, it’s bound to explode.

Remember when liberals loved Politifact (Pulitizer Prize winning!!!) because they were only going after Republicans?  Let this be a lesson to liberal darlings everywhere … you dare to step off the plantation and they are going to let the dogs loose on you.

so the people at MSNBC are a bunch of lying propagandists? Color me surprised!

How Cowardly!

Sending a woman out to do the WET WORK against Politfact.

Media Matters should be ashamed of themselves!
lol

I agree! Call them all out. But also look at Politifact like any other news service.  Trust then verify.

The top layer of factual certification, currently represented by politifact and factcheck, were an important innovation. The architecture is ancient at this point. A national clearinghouse for civic knowledge is way past possible and badly needed.

The left absolutely loved politifact right up until the moment they started critiquing it.

We of the right always thought it iffy

well believe polifact or mediaite, not really a tough call there

FACTS!

Ve don’t need no FACTS at MSNBC…We For Obama, That Only fact We Need!

 Guess again. You might find that Fox is cited far more often for its lack of truthfulness:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements

The Comedy Channel For News And Truth…Now That’s Funny !!

Tommy in a tizzy about fellow liberals basically being shown either as liars or spinners. On the Maddow question, more people are conservative or lean conservative by a wide margin than those who are liberal or leaning liberal. The angry left are a minority, thank goodness or we’d all be on welfare.

Clearly, you didn’t read the article.

I rate P

“So, while it’s true that no example of the word “welfare” has been cited “     

Why are you even writing this article. You just admitted it was true. Of course it is always permissable for you to make assumptions, speculate and read peoples minds as seems to be a common thread in most of your opinion pieces. It does prove you to be horribly biased and ignorant however since your assumptions always lean left with no real proof.

 And loyal foot soldier, Tommy, is quick to lash out in defense.

Tommy Christopher – local hack with a mental defect!

 Tommy Christopher gives some of the best articles on mediaite have some respect

It’s always the bottle and never the message makes you folk laugh.

purple or pink?

Hey!  I’ve been to Alabama.  No lean people there!

why does mancow, jon stewart, lawrence o’donnell, keith oblermann and hell i’ll also throw in romney all look the same?

In Tommy’s world it really doesn’t make a difference if you hear it or not to slam conservatives. Like the N word when the health care plan passed.
But then again when conservatives complained about students booing Brewer, Tommy’s defense was he just couldn’t hear it on the tape.
You don’t get  a round mouth from eating square meals. 

Even funnier is that you get your news from a comedy channel masquerading as a news channel. That’s REALLY funny!!!

perspective…google it.

You and I are entitles to make observations based on perspective. The author of this piece has a higher obligation. While he is entitled to his opinion, supposition based purely on his ideology and what he believes to be “the truth” is lazy and the work of an ameuter.

“So, while it’s true that no example of the word “welfare” has been cited (which doesn’t mean it never happened), criticism of the bill was unquestionably in the spirit of modern welfare politics, and then some.”

which doesn’t mean mean it never happened?? This is really hack material. We could apply that phrase to nearly anything to prove our beliefs.  A talented professional writer does not sink to this level just to desperately prove he/she is right about something.

Dude, when railing against it, the chief critic railed waxed eloquent on the horrors of the British “dole system.”   If you don’t know that “dole” is a synonym for “welfare,” you’ve got some problems with the English language.

You’re missing the point,man.
For example,I could call you a moron for 12 paragraphs without actually writing the word,right?
Tommy’s point makes sense if you ask me,especially since politifact has been “interpreting” the data a lot lately.

But hey,that’s just my opinion.

Really earning your money today.

I like this one, where O’Donnell fact checks Maddow.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Pay No Attention to What You’ve Heard (From Rachel Maddow)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/02/12/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-pay-no-attention-what-youve-heard-rachel-madd#ixzz1mySjsBXt 

square jawlines & protruding chins?

 I thought Fox was a news channel.  JK

Would that be DEMOCRATIC congressman John Rankin a noted racist whose opposition to the GI bill had more to do with blacks receiviing benefits than the bill itself?  Funny how they left the democrat part out above. Guess you didn’t know that southern democrat in the last century was a synonym for racist.

They didn’t have to use the word “welfare” for O’Donnell’s statement to be true. Like lilly said, one of the critics that PolitiFact actually quotes refers to the “dole system”. As in, “living on the government dole”. That’s an more insulting way of saying welfare.

Except that hasn’t happened. What has happened is that PolitiFarce has taken an increasingly obvious right-wing slant.

Reading the articles is a bit much to ask of barely-literates like Norbit.

We were fine with PolitiFact back when they were actually doing fact-checking. Which increasingly is not the case.

PolitiFact was never “only going after Republicans”. It’s just that Republicans objectively lie a lot more than Democrats. When PolitiFact actually did honest fact checking, that mean they were bad for the GOP. But they apparently decided that honest fact-checking opened them up to accusations of “liberal bias”, so they’re trying to artificially “balance” things by rating some false statements by Republicans as true and true statements by Democrats as false.

What’s funnier is that the comedy channel is objectively a better news source than Fox.

They got a Pulitzer years ago. PolitiFact’s research standards have dropped precipitously since then. And sometimes they just flat-out ignore their own research to give the rating they want to give.

Politi”Fact” being dishonest. How shocking.

Hey..no problem. Of course it makes sense to you since you are “interpreting” the data (just to save you some time…data does not equal fact) that Mr. Christopher is presenting to you. I’m not sure you could call me something without saying the word. You could imply something without saying it for 12 paragraphs..come to think of it that seems to be a talent the left and Tommy Christopher have been truly blessed with.

MMMMost of this country are liberals who don’t even realize it.

 ”Years ago” was 2009.

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2009-National-Reporting

 At last, we can agree on something.

Yes. The South used to be full of racist Democrats but most of them changed parties over the last 30 years. Did you miss Reagan’s southern strategy?

 I think you’re just as much in the tank for MSNBC as the tin foils are for fox.

 How very stereotypically sexist of you =)

 Well shit then dude, you might as well say Karl Rowe is running Gallup.

 This is most likely true though currently it can’t be verified by the existing means of gathering information.

Perhaps that would explain the lower incidences of riots, discrimination in schools and businesses and violence inflicted on blacks in the south over those same 30 years as compared to what we had before they changed parties.

 Today, Politifact.  Tomorrow,  an op-ed in The New York Times will have you claiming they’ve secretly been bought out by Murdoch by your logic.

Here’s a counterpoint to this article’s passive hypothesis:

Who buys the majority of the ad space at Mediaite?  

If you guys have no problem interchanging words how come you get all hysterical when someone calls progressivism socialism. I think we would agree that socialism is a more insulting way of saying progressivism.

I don’t think you’re familiar with the Republican Southern Strategy, it was about appealing to racism to gain support in order to win elections. How would that have any effect on the things you mention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I think it’s funny how Republicans have to go back almost a century to demonstrate that it’s the Democrats who are racist. Give me a freaking break. We know when the South became a stronghold for the GOP. It was when the GOP opposed civil rights legislation. Thurmond 1964 anybody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

And why is Mediamatters mentioned? Because on TUESDAY from David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt, and Media Matters for America. hits the streets! “The Fox Effect – How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine”  dismantles once and for all the notion that there’s any
genuine meaning behind the network’s “fair & balanced” slogan. See the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vssW0TbooI
And the Fox freaks really have their panties in a wad!

On the dole

Meaning
Unemployed and in receipt of state benefit.
Origin
In the UK, Unemployment Benefit has been known by the slang term ‘the dole’ since WWI. This derives from the ‘doling out’, i.e. ‘handing out’ of charitable gifts of food or money. This dates back to at least 1919, when it was recorded in The Daily Mail:
“You won’t draw your out-of-work dole of 29s. this week.”

Progressivism and socialism may have some similarities, and may perhaps overlap; however, they are not synonymous.

I am sure it is nothing personal. The folks at politifact probably wouldnt know what anybody on MSLSD said except for the fact they have to give them the pants on fire award or whatever on a daily basis.

Take a look at how people who receive fox as their only news source define the word “fact”.

It makes me wonder if the meaning of the word itself has been altered. 
Or more precisely if the way America perceives the word ”fact” has been altered.

I believe fox news has been successful in warping the idea of a what a ”fact” actually is … so as to make the word unusable in this country. Unreliable at best. And I believe that they did it on purpose. 

So with that in mind … I have to wonder exactly what does Politifact actually mean ?

I guess you didn’t know that it’s now the 21st century and nobody cares how people used to think.  Except conservatives of course. Because that’s all they’ve got.

Who the **** is “Karl Rowe”?

I apologize. It was foolish of me to think I could argue with enlightened and elite left.

Doremus..you are correct. The plight of Africam Americans in the 30 years since the southern strategy has gotten worse than it was before. Don’t know how I missed that. 

And Scott…from Doremus wikpedia entry

  Though the “Solid South” had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party’s defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

Seems to poke a few holes in your blame the republicans strategy.

A lot can change in two and a half years. PolitiFact has gotten far less accurate and far more willing to bend into pretzels of “logic” in order to balance out the number of lies between the left and the right.

Let’s be honest here people… Politifact is a fact checking website.  They used to slam Republicans from 2008-2010 because Republicans had to lie to defend Bush.  They are now slamming democrats because since then, democrats have had to lie to defend obama.  It’s that simple

survey says the Faux viewers are not only the most misinformed thasn any other news channel watcher…they are less informed than folks that watch NO news whatsoever…now thats sucking information from a shallow brain pool if you ask me

Because Jay …. people who continually get on the internet to post about socialism usually don’t know the FIRST thing about it. And that’s why it scares them. For them it’s kind of like death. Nobody really knows what in the hell it actually is. So it’s just fear of the unknown.

But socialism is different from death in a very important way. You can study socialism. You can also experience it, and actually come back to talk and write about it. And you can teach people who are actually interested in learning something new. Some people who are educated actually DO know what in the hell socialism is. Or at least have a pretty good idea of what it’s about. So we’re not scared of it. The people who do know what socialism is …. are NOT the ones constantly talking out the sides of their neck about it somewhere on the internet.

So yeah.  Those of us who know a little something have heard enough from the people who know nothing. We’ve had to listen to you blather about a subject that you don’t understand … and don’t care to learn … for about 4 or 5 years straight now. And we’re now at the point where we are starting to get a little hysterical from hearing you clowns just make stuff up about socialism as you go. We’ve heard enough from you bozos. 

Progressivism and socialism are two different things, Jay. Even you should recognize that.

I remember when Scientologists infiltrated and eventually took over the Cult Awareness Newtwork.  Makes you wonder if Tea Baggers have done the same with Politifact.

They’re being yelled at by more than a pundent, it’s a pundit…so can your mind be persuaded now?

Perhaps you could explain the major differences. It seems that they both seek a similar goal.

This has nothing to do with liberal/conservative breakdown and everything to do with consistency.

Politifact doesn’t just issue judgments, they have writeups to go along with them.  They say when Rubio makes a statement comprised of 2 parts, and both of them are false, that his statement is “Mostly True.”  They also say when President Obama makes a statement of 2 parts and both are true, that his statement is initially false, then they change it to Half True.  With O’Donnell, this is at best unconfirmed.  There’s no way they could’ve gone back and read every word spoken about the GI Bill during debate.  Nor should they be expected to.  They did some cursory searches, didn’t find the exact word, but did find statements that line up with the premise.  It’s like saying Joe Wilson never called President Obama a liar.  That’s true, you can’t go back and find the sentence in which he said “President Obama is a liar.”  However, he did should “You lie” at the President.  Distinction without a difference. 

They did win a Pulitzer, but that was a couple years ago.  Since then, they’ve really taken a huge step backward and it’s not hard to see what happened.  They went from rating factual statements true or false to rating their perceived intention of the statements.  Rubio said something factually false.  But they interpreted his meaning and said he was basically telling the truth.  Same thing with Obama.  He said something factually true, but they interpreted his meaning to basically say that he shouldn’t be the one saying the true statement, so it’s not true.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I think all the cable news channels suck at reporting the news accurately. But I will say that the data regarding Fox News’ viewers being less informed is more a result of broad reach than it is anything related to supposed ideaologies of viewers. Fox beats its cable counterparts in ratings regularly. If you are reaching a broader audience, it stands to be true that more viewers would be less informed based in the simple fact that they have more viewers overall.

Well Greg, I have read your post and you seem very defensive but not very informative on why you think socialism would benefit us. Sorry if I blathered and made stuff up (can you point out the stuff I made up by the way).
I realize that socialism does appeal to some and I even admit that in a perfect world (say..heaven perhaps) it would be a great way to live. The small problem that socialists have not been able to solve however is that we don’t live in a perfect world and human nature being what it is sure screws up your grand plan. We can’t all be equal. Somebody has to be in charge and tell everyone else what to do. That makes that guy more equal and can create eny. I’v also noticed that all those that promote socialism, progressivism, etc seem to think that when this great plan is put in place they will all be those slighltly more equal, tell everyone else what to do, types. Eventualy you are back to two classes in society. You remember Stalin and those other great humanitarians.

As I mentioned, I would not be opposed in a perfect world, however given the world we do live in and human nature I do strongly bellieve that we need to be motivated to succeed and advance our civilization. Kinda like what the US has done that past 200 years or so. Do you honestly believe we would be as successful as a country on whole any other way..acknowledging that there are those in society that would rather not work or contribute and would dispute this. 

Maybe you could show me how you have gotten around the envy thing and the inevitable “slackers” for lack of a better term that plan on sliding by and not contributing to the grand society. I’d really love to hear it.

No more so than liberals had to redefine the word “lie” when referring to George W. Bush.

No, the left ran out and laid claim to a bunch of “issues” that aren’t liberal issues and then claimed that because Americans agreed with those issues, they weren’t conservative.  Media Matters was a master changer of definitions when it conflated conservatives/Tea Party/Republican issues, depending on how it wanted to couch the outcome.  It was push polling at its best.

Just look at the definitions:
Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

See the difference?

 What you posted has exactly nothing to do with what I said.  What are these “issues” of which you speak?  Social Security, which 0 Republicans voted for?  Medicare, which the Republicans want to privatize so when we’re 80 years old we have to spend hours searching through forms to figure out whether the voucher we’ve received will be enough to pay for care?  Public education, which allows even the poorest students to have a shot at a better life?

What I said is that Politifact is not consistent.  They rated both pieces of a Rubio claim false, and then said the statement as a whole was Mostly True.  They rated both pieces of an Obama statement true and then said the statement as a whole was Half True.  How can you not see the rampant inconsistency there?  I’m not impugning them as partisan in any way, just saying they suck at defining what is a fact and what is not.

Thank you for the wikpedia definitions. However the “goal” is what I questioned not the wikpedia entry. They both seek to create an equal society by controlling all aspects of society. Progressives smartened up and realized no one would go along with the definition of socialism. So they just changed the wording to make it more palatable and acceptable by the masses. They are both looking for control. Sheep need to follow and be controlled. My worst nightmare is being controlled by the likes of Lawrence O’Donnell and Miuchael Moore. Of course Lawrence would never give up his $1000 suits and Michael would never give up anything that was edible. Seriously..look at the guys…one a staunch progressive and the other an admitted socialist. They won’t share anything now and that is not being facetious.  Do you really think they and others like them would change and “share” with you if they had power?

All anyone can say about BSnbc is they are full of it over there. It is a clown factory!

 There WAS a bit of grumbling about the GI Bill just after WWII.

  It came mostly from a tiny cadre of elitist academics and blue blood ‘entitleds’.

  They felt that the unwashed lower class Blue Collars had no place on college campuses.

  They felt that those to ‘ The Factory Born ‘ should stay in their place.

   The Jack Kerouacs of the world, had a byatch of a time getting their work published for

   just those reasons. The Tweedy/Preppys didn’t want the august halls of cloistered academia, nor the

   hushed cathedrals of publishing, business or banking cluttered up with the uncouth.

What’s funnier is that the Comedy Channel is subjectively a better news source than Fox.

FIFY

You do know that all you did by posting that information from the article is reiterate his whole point. Don’t you?

“Southern Democrats STOPPED SUPPORTING THE PARTY FOLLOWING THE CIVIL RIGHTS PLANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN in 1948, the African-American Civil Rights movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

In other words, they either joined third parties or went over to the Republicans. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by a Democratic president and was opposed along geographical, not party lines. A huge majority of both Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans voted for the Act, while Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans overwhelmingly voted against it. Those Southern Democrats eventually abandoned the party.

It is not 1947, and it’s sad that you have to pretend that it is to “win” an argument.

Politifact does a great job and provides both its conclusion and its reasoning in a very transparent way.  You can disagree, but this bizarre range of liberal attacks on poltifact are pretty obvious.  Maddow and O’Donnell were caught misleading, own up to it, and take it like a professional.   

Actually both do a thorough and bi-partisan assessment and are transparent about their reasoning.  Their services are needed now more than ever.  

If you don’t like fair assessment, stick with your biased sources instead.  Politifact is the target of partisan hacks on both sides, a good sign that of any bi-partisan source.   

Daddy Bud was referring to a University of Maryland study that found those particular results.  The number of FOX viewers has nothing to do with the results of the study.  The sample size of FOX viewers and non-FOX viewers should be the same.

My point was on reaching a wider audience. If you reach a broader audience, I think it’s easy to make the assumption that more viewers would be uninformed. It’s like saying McDonald’s feeds more fat people than Wendy’s. Well of course it does. The nature of their size and reach skews the numbers.

Your comment would receive a ‘pants on fire’.   Just read through their content, you’ll see a thorough process, and the reasoning they used.   Their job is to provide an unbiased opinion, NOT to persuade. That’s for news cable shows (with exceptions)>  

Well, if Fox wins in ratings that tells everyone they aren’t news.  Americans don’t tune into anything to stay informed, they tune in to be entertained.  In fact, you seem to be admitting as much by implying that more viewers=less informed. 

You’re just being dishonest about it by stating that you don’t have a dog in this fight, but posting multiple times on the subject.  Nice handle, btw, totally not designed to get a reaction or bring gratuitous attention to your posts, how brave.

@pdiddie: Greater reach means a greater mix of people. That’s my point. I’m not here to defend Fox as you imply. My problem w this so-called study is that it is a veiled attempt call conservatives uninformed. It’s not aimed to call out Fox at all. It attacks conservatives by way of Fox News. That’s petty and self-serving to those performing the study.

And, dude, if you have ever read any of my other posts on Mediaite you’d see how I have been highly critical of media figures on Fox, MSNBC, national networks, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Your assumptions only show how ignorant and uninformed you are. The idiots on all of these networks operate inside an echo chamber of their ideologies. As for my handle, it’s just meant as a little poke in the eye. It’s nothing more than having fun w today’s pop culture. (I’ve stated that before, too)

There has to be a reason FOX News has the HIGHEST ratings time and time again. Generally most folks can see through things and when they do they change course. That’s not the case with FOX News and their ratings prove that!!

The reason is that 3 million or so conservatives like what Fox tells them, regardless of whether it’s true. There’s no one easier to con than those who want to believe. Every study of Fox viewers shows they’re more likely than anybody else to believe false information.

Many liberals are actually pinkos and commies but don’t even realize it. Many liberals have no clue that conservatives are conserving classical liberalism, and modern liberals are actually social justice junkies who want the Patriarchy to take control, keep everyone safe, healthy, smart, informed, productive, and run our lives- fearing what would happen if stupid people in fly over country were to actually govern their darn selves a little bit.

Nothing subjective about it, clown. Multiple studies have shown that people who get their news from Comedy Central are better informed than those who get it from Fox News.

Except that PolitiFact’s opinions aren’t unbiased at all. And it’s not at all uncommon for their reasoning to flat-out contradict the ratings they give.

No, they weren’t “caught misleading”. It’s PolitiFact who did the misleading. They don’t do a “great job”, because they’re repeatedly getting their “fact-checks’ very wrong.

My Daddy Can Whip Your Daddy !!!

It is currently 2012. 2009 was 3 years ago. Three is enough to merit the use of the plural. I rate Calvinus’ statement as “Mostly true”.

 Liberals loved Politifact when they went after liars. Now they only go after liberals.