RNC's Ed Gillespie slips up -- calls FACTCHECK.org a repub site...

...but then admits he was wrong...

Several of our subscribers were alarmed to hear Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie claim -- in an obvious slip of the tongue -- that FactCheck.org is a Republican website. It happened July 12 in a C-SPAN television interview.

It's not true, of course. And at first we didn't believe Gillespie had really said such a thing, given how often we've criticized him, the RNC and the Bush campaign. But when we got around to checking the video -- there it was -- he said it.

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=229

go read their Bush AWOL stuff...it'll make you think twice

..favorable to my side.

They did print these:

RNC's Gillespie Gets It Wrong on Clark and Iraq
He claims Clark’s House testimony in 2002 shows he supported military action, but Richard Perle was there and he didn’t think so.

Puncturing a Republican Tax Fable
GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don’t believe it.

RNC Fails to Document Ad’s Claim
Says Dems attack Bush “For Attacking the Terrorists,” but can’t cite a single example

but I do believe they PARSED their words on the AWOL/deserter thing and were NOT technically correct

Maybe you aren't keeping your flames straight. I SAID they were LESS evenhanded toward Dems than Repubs - I gave a very specific instance in which they were and I SAID I hadn't reviewed them since the primaries...if requested, I will gladly review them further and give you my solicited opinion on whether or not they are rightwing..until then..try to keep what I say straight from what others say.

...and what I wrote, to be fair, was hardly a flame.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=140

It is highly disingenuous. Take a look at their summary:

With Democrats openly accusing President Bush of being "AWOL" from his Air National Guard service during the 1970's, the White House released personnel and payroll records showing Bush was paid and credited for service during the period in question. And despite a six-month gap in service while working on a Senate campaign in Alabama, Air Force Reserve records show Bush was credited with enough points to meet his requirements for that year -- barely.


Of course, no one is charging that the Air Force didn't give Bush credit -- they are answering a strawman of their own making. The charge against Bush - unanswered by the documents provided by the administration - is that Bush didn't show up for his required duty.

You can label them however you want.

I haven't seen many mainstream sources present that story in a real negative light anyway.

And factcheck does not even address the issue of whether or not the charge that Bush was AWOL was accurate -- all they do is state the he was 'given credit'. Well, duh, that's the problem, he was given credit even though he didn't show up. :eyes:

Am I wrong that not many mainstream sources have presented the AWOL story the way we'd like it to be or that the way this site interpreted the facts isn't the way we would have preferred them to have?

I demonstrated how their coverage of the AWOL issue was biased, and rather than respond to what I said, you replied:

perhaps it is, or maybe it is how they interpreted the facts

To which I replied, 'you are wrong'.

You are wrong to give factcheck a pass without actually examining the substance of the issue.

The issue they are supposed to be examining is "Did Bush fulfill his duty in the National Guard". However, the issue they actually did address is "Did Bush recieve credit".



Citing the mainstream media as colloborating their 'unbiased' status?

:wtf:

The entire thread is about whether they are a rightwing or GOP site.

You clearly believe they are based on one pet issue.

What you might have said was: There is no evidence that they are a GOP site but their coverage of the AWOL issue was inaccurate.

HINT: I've examined the issue and was one of the first DU'ers to research and publish info on it.

I don't care how you label them, but I think it is important for people to know that they are not an unbiased, impartial source.

So, he must be non-partisan, right?

-Bop

Are you saying that if one isn't completely with us they are against us?

I'm saying that subtle bias and slanting can be used in a pseudo non-partisan way. I was interested in factcheck when they first started up, and noticed repeated challenges to democratic ads at a much higher rate than republican ads.... and this was in a timeframe where there were more republican ads on the air.

Let's just take their current "top stories", first, the stupid Tides/Outsourcing emails. They didn't bother debunking this until now after getting (by their own account) hundreds of emails, and snopes had debunked outsourcing back in March. That's 5 months of breathing room.

Second story says Kerry was wrong.
Third story says Club For growth was wrong.
Fourth story misrepresents the content of a Kerry ad.
Fifth story weasels the 16 words in favor of Bush.
Sixth story expounds upon an attack ad against Kerry.

Keeping score?

-Bop

Since the other poster actually went to the trouble of getting specific, what's stopping you from doing the same?

Let's see your score.

They did print these:

RNC's Gillespie Gets It Wrong on Clark and Iraq
He claims Clark�s House testimony in 2002 shows he supported military action, but Richard Perle was there and he didn�t think so.

Puncturing a Republican Tax Fable
GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don�t believe it.

RNC Fails to Document Ad�s Claim
Says Dems attack Bush �For Attacking the Terrorists,� but can�t cite a single example

OK, you've listed 3 stories critical of Republicans - out of how many? How many are critical of Democrats? Out of how many? We have seen at least one story biased towards Bush - how many others are there? Out of how many? Are any biased towards Kerry? How many? Out of how many?

In short, what is the score?

The poster you glowingly challenged me to match listed 6 stories - not all of which were critical of democrats.

So If you are pitting me against that poster (as you seem to be), he has done no more or less than I.

The poster you glowingly challenged me to match listed 6 stories - not all of which were critical of democrats.

Exactly. The first six stories:

Let's just take their current "top stories", first, the stupid Tides/Outsourcing emails. They didn't bother debunking this until now after getting (by their own account) hundreds of emails, and snopes had debunked outsourcing back in March. That's 5 months of breathing room.

Second story says Kerry was wrong.
Third story says Club For growth was wrong.
Fourth story misrepresents the content of a Kerry ad.
Fifth story weasels the 16 words in favor of Bush.
Sixth story expounds upon an attack ad against Kerry.


So the score is, out of 6 stories, chosen because they were the current 'top stories', 5 are pro-Bush or anti-Kerry, one is pro-Kerry or anti-Bush     83%


Let's contrast that to your 'scorekeeping':

RNC's Gillespie Gets It Wrong on Clark and Iraq
He claims Clark�s House testimony in 2002 shows he supported military action, but Richard Perle was there and he didn�t think so.

Puncturing a Republican Tax Fable
GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don�t believe it.

RNC Fails to Document Ad�s Claim
Says Dems attack Bush �For Attacking the Terrorists,� but can�t cite a single example

So the 'score' is, out of ?? stories, chosen because ??, ?? are pro-Bush or anti-Kerry, 3 are pro-Kerry or anti-Bush    ??%


:eyes:

So the score is, out of 6 stories, 5 are pro-Bush or anti-Kerry, one is pro-Kerry or anti-Bush

That is the poster's opinion of the pieces. Example:

Let's just take their current "top stories", first, the stupid Tides/Outsourcing emails. They didn't bother debunking this until now after getting (by their own account) hundreds of emails, and snopes had debunked outsourcing back in March. That's 5 months of breathing room.

One can get hundreds of e-mails in a given day. I began recieving this e-mail in the middle of July. Also, Snopes didn't have this story for five months as the poster implied but rather posted in first in early July and updated it July 11. So claiming Factcheck gave the story 5 months of breathing room is dishonest.

But factcheck DID debunk the story in Teresa Kerry's favor. Pro-Dem.

Second story - anti-dem.

Third story -anti-GOP

Fourth story - anti-dem (but has anyone disputed the stats in it?)

Fifth story - anti-dem

sixth story - pro-dem

By my estimation, 3 of the 6 front page stories, 50%, side with democrats.

Further, 5 of the 7 stories from earlier in July (from the archives) are pro-dem and one is neutral.

Clearly, IMO, 8 of 13 stories posted in July and August are pro-dem

and you have failed to respond to the points I've raised often enough that I no longer believe you are discussing this in good faith.


But we've put plenty of stuff out there so that DUers will be able to do the research for themselves, and form their own judgement.

They can examine whether factcheck does actually check the facts and examine the charges in an unbiased manner, or whether they simply repeat Bush campaign spin: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=140

They can do their own 'scorekeeping' of factcheck's stories: http://www.factcheck.org

They can examine the campaign contributions of the officers and trustees of factcheck: http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg

So since all that is available for DUers to make their own informed judgement -- you can have the last word, since you are not responding to me anyway.

"So claiming Factcheck gave the story 5 months of breathing room is dishonest. "

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
"Last updated:   30 March 2004"

-Bop

Yes they do give in to the dems when they have too. You proved that.

...you will see they trash the GOP just as much - if not more - than they do the Dems.

Example: 4 of 7 reports for July held the republicans in a bad light and one was nuetral.

I don't care about whether '4 out of 7 reports for July held the republicans in a bad' -- what I care about is whether they actually do check the facts, and present their conclusions, in an unbiased way.

As far as the Bush/AWOL issue, they have not done that.

sorry. We may not like their coverage of one issue, but I just don't make a blanket statement of "bias" when a story doesn't get covered the way I think it should.

that their coverage of the AWOL issue is biased in favor of Bush?


I never branded them as right-wing, and I never made a "blanket statement of 'bias'" -- I made a highly specific, documentated charge that their coverage of the AWOL issue is deceptive, disingenuous, and biased in favor of Bush.

Starting in post 5, where the poster says the site IS rightwing, you join the sub-thread using their AWOL coverage as an indication of such, clearly implying that said coverage makes them rightwing.

No, you didn't SAY it but it was implied in your response.

All I'm saying is that coverage we don't like doesn't make one rightwing. If it did, recent coverage by lefty sites like Counterpunch become righwing.

I'm not talking about 'coverage I don't like' -- I'm talking about coverage of an important issue -- 'Was Bush AWOL from the National Guard' -- that is blatantly biased, in that it doesn't even address the issue -- it simply repeats the Bush campaign spin -- "he recieved credit".


Repeating Bush campaign spin instead of addressing the actual issue of whether or not Bush showed up clearly does not fulfill this mission statement:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. 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. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

BTW, I agree with you that the deceptive agitprop put out by counterpunch is an overall plus for the right-wing.

...has the entire media been biased towards Bush in this respect? Probably. Does it make them all rightwing? No.

So, where was I wrong?

so when voters trying to make up their mind on this issue go to factcheck to find out the truth, they won't get the truth, they will get Bush campaign spin.


You are welcome to label that however you want.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg&first=Walter

we shall see

...they appear pretty evenhanded.

Unless, of course, we assign more weight to the issues they take the GOP's side on.

who knows...Annenberg was funded by a RW source IIRC..but maybe they burned their funding sources...would be nice

Died in 2002.

Trustees & Staff Print this page Email this page

Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg
Founder, 1908-2002

Trustees

Leonore Annenberg
President, Chairman and Sole Director

Wallis Annenberg
Vice-President

Lauren Bon
Charles Annenberg Weingarten
Gregory Annenberg Weingarten

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/about/about_show.htm?doc_id=210597

Seems as if his widow, Leonore, current trustee, President, Chairman and Sole Director has made more donations for more money that her late hubby Walter. I quit the "annenberg" newsmeat search after the first 5 pages of 25 donations on each.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg

at times it does seem that they are trying to be nice to Bush. It is not only the AWOL issue. It also happened on the issue of whether Bush cut veterans funding. At first factcheck.org claimed that the Democrats were lying when they said that Bush cut veterans benefits. The website claimed that funding had actually risen under Bush. Then they explained why funding had gone up. It was not that Bush had given more money, or that he did not cut benefits, it was just that more veterans were reaching the time when they could get their benefits. So Democrats were not lying when they said Bush had cut veterans benefits. So at times it seems that the website nitpicks the claims of Democrats. The claims will be true in general, but the website will take one thing out of the claim and say that that part is not true, just like the veterans benefit claim. They do point out when the Republicans are lying, but it seems like they may be scared to be called a partian website so they try to find reasons to say the Democratic ads are false even if it is a stretch.

so responding to the first post, so as not to make anyone feel I'm singling them out...

my personal feeling is that it is impossible for any group to be completely without bias of some sort, if nothing else, by what they choose to fact check by what they are not interested in factchecking. (as an example, the sibel edmonds case could be intentionally ignored, which would be an invisible bias to the viewer).
The potential is certainly there that they could choose softball issues on their preferred bias, and crucial issues on their non-preferred bias, therefore merely counting instances quantitatively could be misleading. For example, they could have exactly 10 anti-dem and 10 anti-repub issues, but they could wittingly or unwittingly choose issues of varying relevance or import, or bypass addressing isssues of weightier substance...so that less damage is incurred to their patron side and more damage is accorded to their nonpatron side.

I'm always VERY leary of any group that claims non-partisanship, and take that claim advisedly with a large grain of salt. If for no other reason that the disinformation campaigns are accomplished by leavening straight analysis with slanted. This can give the wrong impression that the whole loaf is straight, if you bypass the slanted, but in reality, the slanted may be the information they're interested in disseminating, and the straight is the filler.

as I said in post 18: "...we assign more weight to the issues they take the GOP's side on."

The bottom line on FactCheck where it concerns the AWOL issue at least is that it not merely presented a biased picture, never CHECKED the facts, and engaged in egregious distortions....

the bottom line is that it deliberately mischaracterized what Walter Robinson has written about Bush's requirements in order to HIDE the fact that Bush had not fulfilled those requirements.

here is how HACKcheck wrote it up....

<i> "Lloyd was later interviewed by the Boston Globe , which questioned whether Bush had met "minimum training" requirements in addition to "minimum retirement" credits. The newspaper said Guardsman are required to serve 15 days of active duty to meet training requirements. The Globe quoted Lloyd as saying of Bush: " Should he have done more? Yes, he should have. Did he have to? No." </i>

now, Bush DID DO the 15 days of active duty that were required. What he didn't do was show up for the required WEEKEND training that was known as "inactive duty training." And that is clear from the Bush records themselves---and Walter Robinson NOTED that requirement...

<i>"The records, which were first reported yesterday by the Globe, show that Bush performed 25 days of weekend and active duty between May 27, 1972, and May 26, 1973. The minimum annual requirement for National Guard service in 1972 was one weekend a month -- 24 days -- and 15 days of active duty -- the same basic requirement that exists today, Lieutenant Colonel Coennie Woods of the National Guard Bureau said in an interview." </i>

Notice how HACKcheck left out the "weekend training" requirement mentioned by Robinson? I checked all of Robinson's stories sourced by HACKcheck, and only ONE mentions the 15 day "active duty requirement" and ONLY in this paragraph.

So it seems pretty obvious that HACKcheck DELIBERATELY distorted Robinson's reporting in order to avoid mentioning FACTS which contradicted its own "conclusions."

There are problems with Robinson's story as well---he bought Lloyd's lie that training requirements were based on the retirement year. They weren't, they were based on a fiscal year that in 1972 ran from July 1 to June 30. And Robinson didn't know that there WAS NO REQUIREMENT for Bush (or anyone EXCEPT people who had at least 18 years of service) to have a "good retirement year---the criteria had NOTHING TO DO with retirement years whatsoever. (It would have been impossible for Bush to meet his training requirement without getting at least 74 points per "retirement year").

But, in terms of the discussion of HACKcheck, well, these people are FULL OF SHIT. and I made EVERY attempt to get them to correct their lies, and they have refused to do so.

http://www.glcq.com