Politifact and truth-seeking
The St. Petersburg Times’ Politifact is a pretty good Web site. In fact, it won the Pulitzer Prize. A regular feature fact checks a healthy collection of quotes from figures on both sides of the political spectrum. Editors then determine their level of truthiness. Pretty good reading and apparently pretty free of bias. Here are a few good ones:
“President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions,” but China and India will still be allowed to increase their emissions.” — Sarah Palin
“Today and every day, an estimated 14,000 Americans will lose their health insurance coverage.” — Tom Harkin
The Climatic Research Unit e-mails show that the science behind climate change “has been pretty well debunked.” — Tom Inhofe
President Obama has “the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year.” — Karl Rove
Depending on your political sensibilities you may already suspect which statements are true and which are lies. Click on Page 2 below to find out where they stand.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Facebook comments:
So where's page 2 that says which ones are true???
Is a statement rated True if it's factually true but deliberately misleading? That situation pervades.
You've got to click on "view original post" to read the rest!
Thanks. I made the site one of my favorites.
No surprise or disagreement with the truth ratings but disgust that statements like the first are used, ignoring the rationale for such differences, to imply that the proposal is or poorly negotiated or against American interests. (Must relax and resume ignoring political posturing.)
No surprise on the last three.
An aside: Regarding the first quote, it’s naive to expect that India and China would accept emissions cuts “equal” to those of a developed country like the U.S. If parity is what Palin wants, she’s not going to get it.