?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Add fact_check_feed to your LJ friends page...

...that is, if you care which politicians and political advertisements are playing fast and loose with the facts.

fact_check_feed: If you're part of the reality-based community, you need it.

Comments

( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
marquesate
Dec. 19th, 2007 09:50 pm (UTC)
Is that for the US or the world?
bovil
Dec. 19th, 2007 09:57 pm (UTC)
It's for the US, where a majority of my readers are. Of course, if you've got American readers and you want them to make an informed choice, you might want to repost this.
jaylake
Dec. 19th, 2007 10:02 pm (UTC)
Thanks!
darrelx
Dec. 19th, 2007 10:24 pm (UTC)
I find it very suspicious that factcheck.org doesn't say much of anything regarding negative stories involving Hillary Clinton.

For example, NONE of my searches for information about the campaign financing scandal involving Peter Paul and Stan Lee, or the documentary "Hillary Uncensored" resulted in any articles showing up on factcheck.org

Here's some links to research this topic yourself, and ask "why" doesn't factcheck.org even touch on this issue?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305485,00.html

http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/3099/

http://www.gambling911.com/Hillary-Clinton-Spiderman-Peter-Paul-090706.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070420d.html
darrelx
Dec. 19th, 2007 11:19 pm (UTC)
Snopes.com doesn't touch that subject, either... but I lost all respect for snopes as being politically neutral quite a while ago.
bovil
Dec. 19th, 2007 11:58 pm (UTC)
And the sites you reference in your earlier post are? There's a pot and a kettle here questioning whether you're a polar bear or that's a bleach job.
darrelx
Dec. 20th, 2007 12:29 am (UTC)
The other sites don't CLAIM to be politically neutral (except FoxNews... but that's another issue) but the reason they are posted was to show that the subject has been made an issue and that even thought it's gotten a lot of webplay on the conservative side, I can't find anyone who has contested the facts publicly.

Therefore, I contend that Hillary is refusing to touch on this subject, that she will not reply to anyone asking questions about this subject, and that the reason for this is that she's guilty as hell of the biggest campaign financing scandal in history.

Yes, that's my OPINION, but the reason I post it here is that I respect people who think about issues and expect that if I'm wrong, someone here will be able to prove it.

(BTW, sometimes I sound like an extremist, but really, I'm not. most of the time I post an extreme point of view just to get people to think.)

As for factcheck.org: I guess if Hillary refuses to answer a question, there aren't any facts "stated" to check for validity, is that what you're saying?
bovil
Dec. 20th, 2007 12:59 am (UTC)
As for factcheck.org: I guess if Hillary refuses to answer a question, there aren't any facts "stated" to check for validity, is that what you're saying?

I'm saying if this discussion isn't going on in the relatively narrow arena that FactCheck casts its focus upon (and I don't see evidence that it is), they're not going to notice it to check it.

You could always submit your question to Ask Fact Check. Of course, you would have to figure out how to ask it in a short 1-sentence format if you wanted to see it accepted.

Therefore, I contend that Hillary is refusing to touch on this subject, that she will not reply to anyone asking questions about this subject, and that the reason for this is that she's guilty as hell of the biggest campaign financing scandal in history.

Dude... you work for lawyers. This is the subject of an ongoing civil suit in which her husband is a defendant. Tell me that they're not all lawyered-up. Show me one competent lawyer who wouldn't advise the Clintons to not talk about the incident or the case. Whether or not she's guilty she's got expensive people telling her she needs to keep her mouth shut.
bovil
Jan. 18th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)
FactCheck analyzes the Clinton "documentary."

You're not going to like the evidence they uncover that does major damage to most of the claims it makes.
darrelx
Jan. 18th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
Acutally, I'm quite pleased that they addressed the issue. That's far better than when no one would touch the topic with a 10-foot pole.

Lacking any disputing evidence at all, I had believed the message in its entirety, and could only assume that the lack of any mention of it anywhere was a result of some cover-up.

I may still wonder at why FactCheck.org took so long to post anything about this, but at least they did, and it seems they did a thorough job of checking various sources.

Am I "upset" at their findings? If they're true, how can I really be upset? That's like being upset that the sky is blue. Sure, it'd be better for the GOP if there were some solid claims from the Peter Paul matter to use as ammunition against Hillary, but apparently there aren't.
bovil
Jan. 18th, 2008 10:02 pm (UTC)
The article notes they were waiting until they could view the film in its entirety... kind of makes sense from their perspective.
darrelx
Jan. 18th, 2008 11:02 pm (UTC)
Except the material in the trailer and hilcap.org was already out there. They could have debunked that part of the information with a disclaimer that they were waiting to view the whole movie later to debunk any additional claims in the movie.
bovil
Jan. 18th, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC)
That would have been a bad idea, considering the final conclusion was that the film bolstered its claims by taking things out of context.
yourbob
Dec. 19th, 2007 11:23 pm (UTC)
Any story Fox News carries, even if it's just the weather, I have no expectation of being accurate.
bovil
Dec. 19th, 2007 11:54 pm (UTC)
Read the name:
"FactCheck"

Check their mission statement:
"We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases."

Your documentary isn't a TV ad, it hasn't been a subject in debates, speeches, interviews or news releases by any of the candidates or party officials. Peter Paul, for better or worse, is a businessman, not a major U.S. political player.

Clinton has gotten socked by FactCheck for questionable claims she's made in the recent debates and interviews in Iowa. So have other Democratic candidates. So have Republican candidates. So have outside organizations advertising in favor of various candidates.

But go ahead. Be suspicious. Be suspicious and read FactCheck, and go verify all their well-documented primary sources on the admittedly focused area that they cover.
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )