7 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Much has been made during this presidential campaign about Hillary Clinton's honesty, or perceived lack of it. In a recent CNN/ORC poll 50% of voters said Donald Trump was "more honest and trustworthy," while only 35% said the same of Clinton. This has been an ongoing theme for decades, as the right has consistently tried to paint Hillary Clinton as a nefarious liar, etc. But does it jibe with facts? Not really.
 
The website PolitiFact has built its reputation by tracking and fact-checking statements made by politicians. They have compared Clinton's and Trump's records for honesty, and the results are interesting. To wit:
 

 


As you can see, despite public opinion, the facts show that Hillary Clinton, while hardly a paragon of honesty, is far more honest than Donald Trump. Fully 70% of Trump's statements have been rated as Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire by PolitiFact, while only 28% of Clinton's statements have been similarly rated. In other words, most of what comes out of Trump's mouth are lies. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is (believe it or not) slightly more honest than the average politician. (Gary Johnson, who has far fewer statements, has also been tracked by PolitiFact; his "honesty factor" is close to Clinton's, but he has no "Pants on Fire" statements at all.)

 

So why the disparity? Part of it is simple spin. Conservatives have been gunning for Hillary Clinton since she first appeared on the public stage 25 years ago. But mostly it is a side effect of the general polarization of American politics. We have coalesced into two opposing camps of US and THEM. Most people get their news from sources with which they are already in ideological agreement; in other words, people only hear what they want to hear. As Andy Borowitz put it, Earth is endangered by a new strain of fact-resistant humans.

 

There has been a great deal of discussion about having real-time fact checking at the presidential debates. Frankly I can't understand why they wouldn't have it. But neither side seems too keen on the idea, so it probably won't happen. Pity. You know, some of you younglings might not remember this, but there used to be a time when the press not only told you what a politician said, they also told you whether it was true.

 

I know — crazy, right?

 

 

[Manoka]

The problem with this is that politifact only checks selectively what it chooses to. Politifact, at least before this, was't claiming to analyze every single word each candidate said, just certain common myths. In essence, this poll is worthless, given that it only determines what is true and false based on what they've chosen to analyze is true or false. 

 

I mean if Trump said the sky is blue 1,000 times, wouldn't that be a true statement repeated more than the 255 analyzed by politifact? I mean I know he's a liar and all that I'm just saying this source is completely pointless. You're not comparing all of Trump's statements to all of Hillary's, it's what politifact has analyzed of Trump's compared to Hillary's. Which means that you could pick to analyze more lies with one candidate over the other.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

PolitiFact's guidelines, which are unhelpfully vague. Nevertheless they have an excellent reputation. Much better than yours.

[Manoka]

PolitiFact's guidelines, which are unhelpfully vague. Nevertheless they have an excellent reputation. Much better than yours.

None of this in any way even begins to address what it was I was talking about. Which is that they didn't examine everything either candidate said. 

[Shokkou]

PolitiFact's guidelines, which are unhelpfully vague. Nevertheless they have an excellent reputation. Much better than yours.

Reputations aren't always deserved.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

In fact that statement by Bernie was widely criticized for being out of date. Bernie couched it by being very specific about the age range (17-20, an age group that has high unemployment across the board), but it was a little disingenuous. He is still a politician, after all.

[King Biscuit]

Even as such, media does slant things to fit the narrative.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Even as such, media does slant things to fit the narrative.

 

The media is concerned with one thing and one thing only: making money. Call it ratings, selling newspapers, whatever shorthand expression you want, it all amounts to the same thing. It's entertainment, and the more eyeballs you have aimed at the screen the more money you make. Outlets like Fox and MSNBC do it with a partisan spin, but ultimately the goal — and even the methods — are the same. That's why the media created Donald Trump. That's why CNN dedicates so much air time to him. I have CNN on in my house most of the time, and it really is amazing how much they cover Trump. And for the most part that coverage is favorable. Why would that be? Conservatives will tell you that CNN is replete with liberals trying to force their agenda on the American people (in fact CNN is quite moderate, almost to the point of absurdity at times). It's because Trump is entertaining, and entertainment sells. It's really that simple.

 

Americans love to say that they hate our partisan politics, and that they want the media to focus solely on the issues. But that's a crock of shit. Americans LOVE our partisan politics, it's like a contact sport for them. If they didn't love it, and if they really wanted the kind of sober, issues-oriented coverage they say they want, the PBS NewsHour would be the most-watched television program in history. It's not. Not even close. Actions speak louder than words.