Comments on: Fact-checking the new McNerney & Gill ads in CA9

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:16:55 +0000

I don’t think they are biased left or right. Nor do I think they are inaccurate in their analyses. And, when they get to the “Pants on Fire” level, it is generally well-deserved. My problem is that they will look at some candidate’s claim on some issue and declare it “False” based on some relatively minor point, even though the claim in its fullness is fundamentally true.

By: RR senile columnist

RR senile columnist — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:46:56 +0000

Yeah, these so-called fact checkers are suspect. In the old days, we would say they follow the pinko line—checking until the so-called facts fit their preconceptions.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 03:04:51 +0000

I don’t agree that the ad is misleading. We can debate whether companies that outsource or any tax breaks they receive deserve to be demonized. However, I think it is very fair to say that, if you sign Grover Norquist’s pledge, you are indeed pledging not to increase the tax burden of those companies by eliminating or reducing any tax breaks they receive. After all, if Gill were to vote to take away those breaks as a way to increase government revenue, Grover Norquist would definitely consider it a violation of the Pledge.

I find that FactCheck and Politifact, in order to preserve their objectivity brand, sometimes interpret things a bit too narrowly and miss the forest for the trees.