Fact Checkers
Praetorian Guard for the Left
Fact-Checkers Choosing Sides
There are several candidates when choosing a low-point in the world of fact-checkers and fact-checking reports. However, CNN’s 2009 fact-check of a Saturday Night Live skit may have set the bar as low as it could possibly go. Yes, CNN fact-checked a comedy sketch for accuracy and truthfulness.
In the fall of 2009, an October 3rd SNL skit mocking Barack Obama became the first viral hit of the TV season. A cast member portraying Obama said, “[I]t's very clear what I've done so far and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it.”
That comedy sketch lampooning Obama during his freshman year as president was more than the CNN newsroom could take. It went into full Praetorian Guard mode crafting a staunch defense of Obama on the program The Situation Room that included Wolf Blitzer, a CNN entertainment reporter, and Politifact editor Bill Adair.
CNN insisted the comedy show “SNL couldn't have been more off the mark” in its portrayal of Obama. It brought in Politifact’s Adair to the discussion who argued “They got some things wrong.” Adair insisted “SNL tended to kind of gloss over what is a fair amount of progress by this administration” and “We [Politifact] rated that [Obama] had a promise kept” on making the war in Afghanistan better. It was Adair’s opinion that SNL’s comedy sketch “is not a fair portrayal of how Obama’s done.”
Politifact’s Bill Adair criticizing SNL sketch mocking Obama
Think about this. CNN and Politifact were apoplectic over a comedy skit making fun of Obama. This is beyond absurd considering SNL had been poking fun at politicians since its 1975 launch. The frenzied attack on a comedy program pulled back the curtain to reveal both entities as deeply partisan. One observer noted it appeared CNN and Politifact were trying to “reinforce the impression that they are in the tank for Obama.”
It comes as no shock that neither organization rated the truthfulness of comedy skits lampooning George Bush, Sarah Palin, or any other politicians prior to their panicked defense of Obama. Politifact even published a critique of the SNL skit, but it has since been removed from Politifact’s website. According to a search of its website archive, this is the only time Politifact has rated an SNL comedy sketch.
However, the two left-leaning organizations were not alone in fact-checking SNL when it was making fun of Obama. Five years later, the Washington Post did the same thing. The newspaper beclowned itself with its November 23, 2014 article critiquing an SNL skit that ridiculed Obama’s immigration policies.
There are several organizations that claim to perform fact-checking. They issue Pinocchio noses or flaming trousers or other cute symbols to illustrate when they claim someone is not telling the truth. But rarely does someone score their work. And because nearly all of the claimed fact-checkers lean politically left their pronouncements are used without question by most major news organizations.
Perhaps the best known among purported fact-checkers is the entity calling itself Politifact.
Who is Politifact?
St. Petersburg Times launched Politifact in August 2007. Perhaps it was no coincidence Politifact was launched just months after Barack Obama announced his presidential run. The timing is not entirely surprising since the St. Petersburg Times was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama and endorsed him for president.
The St. Petersburg Times was renamed the Tampa Bay Times in 2012. The Tampa Bay Times and other periodicals are owned by Poynter Institute for Media Studies. That is a very noble sounding name. But the reality is Poynter is run by and funded by liberal activists.
In 2017, Poynter received a combined $1.3 million in donations from a pair of liberal billionaires. George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network gave the money to expand Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network. Politifact is the crown jewel in Poynter’s IFCN.
Politifact claims on its website: “As part of PolitiFact’s mission to remain transparent and independent, PolitiFact will disclose on this page any individual donation in excess of $1,000.” But it never disclosed the donations to ICFN from Soros and Omidyar. Obviously, Politifact does not want the public to know of these financial ties.
(Make certain you read the late note entry at the end of this column. A Biden administration official testified under oath in a lawsuit that the State Department had been secretly funding the Poynter Institute.)
Soros and Omidyar donations not disclosed
A search of Politifact’s website archive reveals it has never fact-checked George Soros, Pierre Omidyar or Craig Newmark, and it fact-checked Bill Gates just one time as Mostly True. Like Soros and Omidyar, Newmark and Gates are billionaire activists who also send sizable donations to Poynter. The Democracy Fund is another funding mechanism used by Omidyar to funnel money to Politifact.
One product of Poynter’s IFCN was launched in April 2019. Poynter published a report labeling as “unreliable news sites” several news outlets including the Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, and the Daily Signal (a news project of the Heritage Foundation).
The report was more than just a political hit job intended to smear organizations and news outlets it deemed to be “conservative.” It was a blatant attempt to seriously damage the outlets financially. The report’s author wrote “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”
After a public outcry over the attempt to blacklist and financially damage media outlets that did not enthusiastically promote left-leaning narratives, an embarrassed Poynter retracted its report.
Let’s examine a few of Politifact’s reports.
Ignoring Her Own Words
On January 25, 2021, Politifact posted a story purportedly fact-checking a Facebook post claiming Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA-43) said, “We’re sending a message to every Trump supporting American that you’re not welcome here." Politifact rated that statement Mostly False. Waters did say Trump cabinet officials should be “singled out in public,” admitted Politifact. But Trump supporters needn’t worry, Politifact observed. Waters “did not direct her comments at Trump supporters,” Politifact insisted.
Debunking this false Politifact narrative was quick and easy. The documented record – in this case, Waters’ very own words captured on video – documented she had indeed directed comments to Trump supporters. In fact, she admitted threatening Trump supporters.
Waters spoke in front of a group of activists on September 8, 2018. During her video-recorded remarks she said, “Remember, there are those who said that we lacked civility when I got up and talked about the president’s cabinet and I said if you see them anywhere. If you see them at a restaurant. If you see them in a department store, even at a gasoline station. Just tell them you’re not welcome here, anywhere. And, of course, the lying president said that I threatened all of his constituents. I did not threaten his constituents, his supporters. I do that all the time [emphasis added], but I didn’t do it that time [June 28, 2018].”
Waters continued, “They tried to frame that as violence. That’s not violence.” Inciting her supporters to confront people in public places such as restaurants can often end badly, as demonstrated by similarly minded confront-them-in-public groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
Waters’ admission of making threats start at time code 7:56 of this video.
Politifact likes to trot out its line “missing context” in situations like this. Understand that when Politifact uses the phrase “missing context” in a fact-check it is often followed by an effort to change a truth into a lie, or morph a fib into fact. It depends on whether the person being fact-checked is someone Politifact supports or opposes. In this case, watch the entire video for the complete context of Waters remarks. Her comments are unmistakable. She admitted to threatening Trump supporters.
Here's the summary. On September 8, 2018, Waters admitted to threatening Trump supporters. On January 25, 2021, Politifact falsely claimed Waters “did not direct her comments at Trump supporters.” But she did. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, Politifact might ask, “Who are you going to believe? Politifact or your lying eyes?”
Conflict-of-Interest – Part I
Politifact goes to great lengths claiming it is an independent, reader-supported newsroom. (Hint: The “reader-supported” phrase is its opening to solicit donations from you.) For the record, the majority of Politifact funding comes from wealthy activists and organizations and not from readers.
While Politifact is happy to cash readers’ checks, it is heavily reliant on deep-pocketed liberal donors who no doubt demand the promotion of certain narratives. One of the single largest donors to Politifact, as listed on its own website, is the Washington Post.
This undoubtedly explains why Politifact has never fact-checked the Washington Post, according to a search of its website archive. Not one time in the 15 years since its launch has Politifact verified any of the many fantastical claims made by the Washington Post. But Politifact has fact-checked other newspapers such as the Washington Examiner and the New York Post. Obviously, Politifact would not bite the hand that feeds it. Independence indeed. (Insert sarcasm font here.)
Zero search results for fact checks on “Washington Post”
Politifact has mimicked Hogan Heroes’ Sergeant Schultz’s “I see nothing!” when it comes to the Washington Post. Politifact did not even bother fact-checking a pair of incredulous Washington Post bombshell political stories (published March 2017 and February 2019). The paper was later forced to retract most of each story due to the falsehoods in them.
Conflict-of-Interest - Part II
Politifact published a story on March 25, 2015 labeling a blog post as Mostly False. That post claimed the Obama administration was funding efforts to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a reelection bid.
The proof Politifact offered that US funds were not being spent to oust Netanyahu from office was a denial from the organization at the center of the controversy. A spokesman for the organization said, according to Politifact, that it never “spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong.” That was Politifact’s proof. The group denied it.
There are two major problems with Politifact’s narrative. First, the blog post is completely accurate. A bipartisan report of a Senate investigation reported that the Obama administration funneled money to an organization working in Israel named OneVoice.
The report noted that the grant money was not permitted for election activity; however, money is fungible. The Senate found “OneVoice used the campaign infrastructure and resources built, in part, with State Department grant funds to support V15.” The group V15 was a political organization working to defeat Netanyahu. So, yes. The Obama administration was funding a campaign to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The second major problem with the report was Politifact did not disclose that its generous benefactor, Craig Newmark, had been a supporter and financial backer of OneVoice since at least 2007 (here, here, here, here). Politifact is neither transparent in disclosing a blatant conflict-of-interest, nor would it dare issue a fact-check that shows a political scheme supported by one its major donors was interfering in the democratic elections of another country. Wasn’t that the basis of the now-discredited claims that Russia helped elect Donald Trump?
The Political Left’s Praetorian Guard
If nothing else, Politifact has demonstrated steadfast loyalty to its friends. It was kindest to Obama when he needed it the most. It rated as Half True Obama’s statement "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (oftentimes referred to as Obamacare).
Think about that. Politifact rated the truthfulness of Obama’s statement in 2009. The bill that would eventually become Obamacare would not be introduced into the House until several weeks after Obama made his claim. Three-dozen votes would be taken as countless amendments were considered before the bill was finalized. The proposed legislation did not become law until the following year. Politifact had no factual basis on which to rate Obama’s claim as either truthful or untruthful. Rating the accuracy of a program that did not yet exist is like announcing the race results before the horses even leave the starting gate. It’s untruthful and dishonest.
Why would Politifact even bother addressing Obama’s statement if there were no facts to examine? In this instance, Politifact was performing the role of political supporter, and not the mission of fact-checker. Politifact was providing political cover to Obama during a time when passage of Obamacare in Congress was very much in doubt. Obama had to work out several political back-scratching deals in order get Senate passage when the bill’s future was uncertain. For example, the state of Nebraska was promised federal taxpayers would pay the entire state’s cost of expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. This “Cornhusker kickback” got Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote to ensure passage of the bill.
An embarrassed Politifact would later backtrack in the face of overwhelming evidence that Obama was fibbing when he made the keep-your-doctor claim. Politifact was forced to rate Obama’s statement the Lie of the Year. But it did so only after Obama had been safely reelected president.
You may wonder if the readily available facts show one thing then why would Politifact state something else. For one, Politifact is counting on its followers to not fact-check its work. According to one study, 59% of readers will share a story without actually reading it. Those that actually read some of the story rarely explore the references or weblinks that supposedly bolster their story. Email service Constant Contact claims less than 9% of readers will actually click on a link.
Politifact is counting on its gullible followers to blindly accept their claims at face value despite their sad record of publishing false and misleading information.
Not Working
On February 8, 2015, Politifact attacked a statement made by Senator Ted Cruz. During an appearance on CNN, Cruz said, “The Obama economy has led to the lowest labor force participation since 1978. Ninety-two million Americans aren't working.” Politifact rated Cruz’s statement as Mostly False.
Cruz was relying the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics for his data. The BLS has been issuing a monthly employment report for decades. BLS uses very specific terms with detailed definitions for various categories. This is to ensure uniformity from administration to administration, and from year-to-year so that meaningful yearly comparisons can be made.
One term BLS uses is labor force participation rate which “is the labor force as a percent of the population.” Politifact studiously ignores this fact and implies through its analysis that Cruz was referring to the unemployment rate. He was not. Cruz’s statement was crystal clear. He said “labor force participation.” To suggest Cruz was referring to unemployment is dishonest.
As the BLS report indicates, people are either in the labor force or not in the labor force.
BLS defines “not in the labor force” as “Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.” In summary, these are the people who aren’t working and are not looking for employment. In other words, Cruz was 100% correct. Actually, Cruz was off slightly as the BLS reported nearly 93.7 million (not 92 million) were not working, according to the most recent BLS report (January 2015), that was released days before Cruz’s remarks.
BLS has been consistent for decades in defining the civilian labor force, which includes everyone aged 16 and older. (It is a worthy future debate to discuss if 16 years is the appropriate age to track young adult workers. At the moment, they are included in the totals, according to BLS.) However, the actual facts do not support the narrative Politifact wanted to fabricate. So the Politifact activists engaged in all sorts of trickery in an effort to manipulate and misrepresent the data reported by the BLS.
Politifact started by eliminating from the BLS data three age groups: 16 to 19 year olds, 20 to 24 year olds, and aged 65 and older. These groups have been included in the labor force calculations for decades. BLS has included everyone aged 16 and older for many, many years. Politifact dramatically cut that category to just 25-64 years old to conform to its narrative.
Politifact removed another group from the labor force calculations. It argued that people who are “disabled, taking care of children full-time or have gone back to school” should also not be counted as those who are not working.
Politifact criticized Cruz for using the official numbers from the BLS, which is the most objective data available. To counter Cruz’s statement, Politifact simply made-up its own numbers.
In contrast to what Politifact argues, BLS does include those four categories of people in the “not in the labor force” category that Politifact tried to remove. BLS gets to define its own terms, not Politifact.
Politifact misrepresented what Cruz said. Referring to the labor force participation rate, Cruz stated “92 million Americans aren't working.” In its analysis, Politifact implied Cruz meant “unemployed.” There is a very important distinction between the two categories, as far as everyone else except Politifact are concerned.
The BLS labels someone as unemployed “if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” In casual conversation, two people may refer to a third person as unemployed if he has not had a job in the past year even if he has not bothered looking for one. But BLS drops him from the unemployed category if he hasn’t looked for a job in the past month. That person is removed from the unemployed category and added to the “not in the labor force” category.
In summary, Cruz made a factual statement using BLS data. Unfortunately, the actual data of who was “not working” did not support the narrative Politifact wanted to promote. Politifact wanted four groups of people to go away. Poof. Vanished. Politifact misrepresented what Cruz said, created its own numbers, and then attempted to portray Cruz’s accurate statement as a lie.
One might ask why Politifact would even attempt to pick this fight. As pointed out in The Shame of Sandy Spending II column (November 14, 2022), Politifact was zeroing in on Cruz in early 2015 because he was viewed as one of the GOP front-runners for the 2016 presidential nomination. Politifact wanted to damage Ted Cruz.
Same Statement, Two Different Ratings
Need more proof that Politifact is staffed with political activists? How about two politicians – one a Democrat and the other a Republican – making near identical statements, but only one is rated Mostly True while the other is rated Mostly False.
In 2015, Politifact fact-checked a claim made by Bernie Sanders on July 6, 2015. Speaking of 17-20 year olds, Sanders said, “If they are African-American, the real unemployment rate for young people is 51 percent.”
Using the BLS monthly report, Politifact found a category for 16-19 year olds “which isn’t identical but gives a quick approximation,” the organization reasoned. However, BLS reported the unemployment rate as 31.8% not 51%, Politifact noted.
The Sanders camp claimed it used data from the liberal Economic Policy Institute, which addressed “labor underutilization,” not “unemployment.” Politifact ruled Sanders merely had a problem with terminology. Their final ruling: “The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.”
One year later, Politifact fact-checked an almost identical claim by Donald Trump who said, “If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate.”
Politifact speculated where in the May 2016 BLS monthly jobs report Trump may have derived the “eye-popping 59 percent.” (Notice that Sanders 51 percent was not eye-popping, but Trump’s 59 percent was.) Politifact reported “the [B]ureau [of Labor Statistics] said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean the unemployment ratio … would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure.” Politifact believed it found Trump’s 59 percent figure straight from the pages of the BLS monthly report. That must mean it rated Trump’s statement Mostly True, right? Not hardly.
It's important to note the 41.5 percent figure reported by Politifact does not actually exist in the May 2016 jobs report (here). Politifact got the numbers wrong.
However, we found the correct employment-population ratio for 16-19 year old African-Americans. That figure is actually 20.9%. And by flipping that over (exactly like Politifact did in its analysis) yields an unemployment-population ratio of an actual eye-popping 79.1%!
Let’s go back to Politifact’s analysis of Sanders’s statement to contrast how it reached a different rating of very similar statements. Politifact reasoned Sander’s conflating the terms “labor underutilization” and “unemployment” were more-or-less an apples-to-apples comparison and Sanders only suffered from a problem with terminology.
For the record, “underutilization” and “unemployment” are not the same thing. The Economic Policy Institute defines underutilization as “includ[ing] not only the unemployed but also involuntary part-time workers (those part-time workers who would prefer to be working full time) and those who are marginally attached to the labor force.” Politifact treats the two as identical terms because that supports their narrative.
On the other hand, Politifact ruled Trump’s use of the inverse of “employment-population ratio” was flat-out wrong. It made this ruling even though “employment-population ratio” is a statistic that actually exists in the BLS monthly report.
Politifact’s final ruling: “Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics. We rate his statement Mostly False.”
Here are links to the Politifact stories for Sanders and Trump.
For more on this topic, visit The Shame of Sandy Spending II column (November 14, 2022), which puts fact-checkers at Politifact and Washington Post under the microscope. The column documents how these two fact-checkers misled readers with false and incorrect information in their analysis of $60 billion in federal spending following 2012’s Superstorm Sandy.
[Late note: This is breaking news development. A lawsuit was filed by the attorneys-general for Louisiana and Missouri against the Biden Administration and other entities (Missouri, et al, v. Biden, et al) regarding allegations the US government had colluded with technology companies to stifle the First Amendment rights of individuals and private organizations. Depositions of several US government officials are ongoing. Daniel Kimmage, who served the Biden Administration as the Acting Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center at the Department of State, gave sworn testimony that the State Department has been secretly funding the Poynter Institute. No details were revealed on how the money was spent. This is a developing story.]
Mark Hyman is an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist. Follow him on Twitter, Gettr, and Parler at @markhyman, and on Truth Social at @markhyman81.
His books Washington Babylon: From George Washington to Donald Trump, Scandals That Rocked the Nation and Pardongate: How Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Brothers Profited from Pardons are on sale now (here and here).