President Obama gave a speech this week to assembled Associated Press
editors (among other news professionals) and cited obnoxious Both Sides
Do It(tm) false equivalence in political media narratives as a
contributing factor to the problems in fixing our broken government. As
Tim Murphy of MoJo points out, the inevitable AP fact check of President Obama's speech is rife with...yeah, you see where this is going, right?
President
Obama delivered a fiery (as we journalists like to call such things)
speech to a gathering of newspapers editors in Washington on Tuesday,
chiding Mitt Romney for using words like "marvelous" and knocking
GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan as "social darwinism." It was, by most
accounts, a sign of what's to come from the campaign over the next seven
months. Let's hope this fact-check
of the speech from the Associated Press isn't also a harbinger of the
future. ("It's not even 10 A.M. and we already have a 'worst of the day'
winner," tweets
Pema Levy.) The problem with the piece, by the normally solid
Calvin Woodward, is that it doesn't really check any facts (inflated
jobs figures, spending increases, that kind of thing). Instead, it
suffers from a massive glut of false equivalence.
It's like the AP did this on purpose or something. I give it Five Pinocchios On Fire!
As a candidate, Obama campaigned on a public option.
Progressives were devastated when it was nixed from the Affordable Care
Act—to the extent that some refused to support the final bill. Instead,
Obama went with the market-driven approach favored by the Republican
governor of Massachusetts. Why? Well, in part because Iowa
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley suggested there would be "broad bi-partisan support"
for such a solution. Can you really knock someone for moving to the
left when they started off on the left and ended up where the center
used to be?
The fact-check goes on to rebuke Obama for accusing
Republicans of wanting to toss out lots of economic regulations
(something Republicans want to do) by pointing out that Romney himself
doesn't want to literally eliminate every federal regulation—only a lot
of them, including the Dodd–Frank Wall Street reform package, which was
designed to prevent a repeat of the practices that led to the 2008
crash. But Obama didn't actually say Romney wanted to eliminate all
federal regulations—only a lot of them.
A sense of nuance is
helpful when writing about Washington politics—and nuance, incidentally,
is something campaign speeches generally lack. But fact-checks
are for objective facts, not subjective arguments about what does and
doesn't constitute excessive deregulation. Pieces like this sort of
defeat the point.
No,
pieces like this have
always been the point of "fact-checking". PolitiFact and the Washington
Post's Glenn Kessler do it all the time. The entire point of stuff
like this is to conflate
objective fact checking and
subjective
refereeing and leveraging the credibility of the former to justify
making calls on the latter. Hence, we get "Even PolitiFact says X is
wrong about Y!" when X is a subjective judgement call and not an
objective fact check. That is a cottage industry in DC, if not your
raison d'être of being a Villager. PolitiFact and Kessler are far from alone in this respect.
It's how we end up with "
Lie of the Year!" and such. There's danger in conflation like that, as anyone who might, say, want to ever
see the tax dollars they paid into the Medicare system again would tell you.