In yet another discussion about my alleged attitude problems, a classmate referred to me as a "Nancy Negative." I cried myself to sleep that night. And when I say "I cried myself to sleep" I mean I laughed at him.
Anyway, I said to the guy that if something's working you don't need to talk about it. I'm no different from anyone else. Look at relationships. My best friends are in happy, committed relationships. Not a peep. When there was a problem? Couldn't shut up about it. Pretty much goes for everyone I know.
Classes? Same thing. No one talks about Professor A because he's awesome. Everyone talks about Professor B because he's a jackalope. Restaurants? When's the last time you sent a thank you note to that really good eatery? But I bet you got real nasty at that place with the bad food and the lousy service.
We're all Negative Nancy's, I just happen to be the only one to admit it.
So here I am, at my blog, being a Negative Nancy again. Why? Because something doesn't work. And that something is Politifact.
For those of you who don't know Politifact is an apparatus of the St. Petersburg Times designed to fact check statements made by politicians and those that surround them, like political pundits. They rate statements made by the aforementioned parties with the Truth-O-Meter, ranging from "True" to "Pants on Fire". Politifact's claim to fame is the Obameter, which keeps track of the 10 billion promises President Obama made during his presidential campaign. It has since branched out to other newspapers, including Rhode Island's most prominent rag, the Providence Journal.
Bottom line? Politifact is another garbage idea by far left morons to dumb down the political discourse in this country. Here's why:
Barely legal is exactly what it says: If I had a stash of porn called "Barely Legal" and someone calls the cops on me, what's gonna happen? Nothing. Because barely legal is still legal.
So what the hell does "barely true" mean? It means it's true. If I told you I graduated from high school in 2004 it would be false because I didn't graduate in 2004. But according to Politifact this is "barely true" because, while I didn't graduate in 2004, I still graduated from high school. Do we see the idiocy now? No? Well this leads into my next point:
It's open to interpretation: Here's a statement by the President regarding the government shutdown:
"We’ve got to be careful. Again, let’s use a scalpel; let’s not use a machete. And if we do that, there should be no reason at all for a government shutdown. And I think people should be careful about being too loose in terms of talking about a government shutdown, because this has -- this is not an abstraction. People don’t get their Social Security checks. They don’t get their veterans payments. Basic functions shut down. And it -- that, also, would have an adverse effect on our economic recovery. It would be destabilizing at a time when, I think, everybody is hopeful that we can start growing this economy quicker."
Politifact determined that this statement was "barely true," DESPITE THE FACT that the writer told us during the last government shutdown SS checks still went out and also told us it's basically illegal to cut SS. Sounds like the President lied to me.
But wait, there's more! Poltifact covered for the Messiah by pointing out that the people who mail the checks wouldn't be working and cited the expertise of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney who basically said the same thing (Sidenote: Just so we're clear the WH Press Sec has no authority whatsoever and is just a mouthpiece for whichever president he is serving at the time).
So according to Politifact, the laws of this country and something that happened 15 years ago are trumped by the paper's own interpretation and a guy who comes off as someone who doesn't know the difference between the hole in his mouth and the one in his rear. Who's pants are on fire now?
Here's another one that was rated "barely true". This Rep from Florida says "Polls show that Floridians don't want to repeal the Affordable Care Act,". Pretty simple right? Politifact cites three, THREE, polls directed at Floridians that say they want the bill repealed. What does Politifact do to counter this? Cite national polls to show Americans DON'T want the bill repealed. Hey Politifact? Wasn't the phrase in question about FLORIDIANS? How is this "barely true" when you cited three Florida polls that say the exact opposite of what the congressman said? Are you joking?
Want more? Here's yet another "barely true" where this genius argues with Sarah Palin's use of the word "significant," another one where the writer couldn't find anything "definitive" on a claim by FNC reporter Eric Bolling but knew he was wrong, and here's one where the writer basically says Barbara Boxer's campaign is full of it but somehow pulls off a "barely true." I'm not even going to get into the cover job the Projo continues to do for David Cicilline.
So I guess "barely true" means whatever it needs to mean in order to cover for or trash someone without covering for or trashing them. That's hard journalism for ya.
I rate this one as "who gives a s***.": Bernie Sanders said we, Americans, work longer hours than anyone else in the world. Rhody Rep Stephen Ucci said banks would be less likely to get robbed if video surveillance was installed. Some Rep in Florida said people in Africa walk hundreds of miles to vote. Apparently all three statements are false. But the real question is who cares about any of this.
We have thousands of lawmakers in this country that lie like rugs and there are reporters wasting their time fact checking a nobody RI representative because he says cameras are a good idea. Way to hold politicians accountable Politifact.
Unbiased? Please: As I'm writing this Sunday afternoon, I'm watching Live Free or Die Hard on FX. Let's see who's on the front page of Politifact:
-Ron Paul, Republican Representative
-Tim Pawlenty, Republican Governor
-Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential nominee
-Mike Bennett, Republican State Senator
-Stephen Ucci, Democratic State Representative
-Jim Renacci, Republican State Representative
-Joe Gibbons, Democratic State Representative
-Barack Obama, Democratic President of the United States
-Gerry Connolly, Democratic State Representative
-David Stockman, Republican and former Reagan advisor
-National Republican Congressional Committee, probably a bunch of Republicans
-Adam Hasner, Republican Senate Candidate
-Arianna Huffington, professional idiot who runs a liberal rag full of bloggers who are pissed off they work for free
-Eric Cantor, Republican Representative
-Saxby Chambliss, Republican Senator
-Rob Portman, Republican Senator
-Dick Armey, hardcore Republican
-John Thrasher, Republican State Senator
-Terry McAuliffe, Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate
Nineteen names. Thirteen of them conservative/Republican and of the six liberal/Democrats named the only lawmaker of prominence is POTUS. Nevermind what they said or what the comments were rated. You mean to tell me that there wasn't a single prominent liberal/Democrat that said anything worth fact checking? Give me a break.
The most egregious example of bias was when Politifact fact checked an SNL skit parodying POTUS. I must have missed all those fact checks on the Tina Fey Palin skits. Or pretty much any other politician that was parodied on SNL. If that doesn't show in the tankness I don't know what does.
Most people don't read past the headlines, and Politifact knows it: All it takes is a couple of "False" or "Pants on Fire" claims next to a hated politician and idiocy runs rampant. Given what I just said, I'm sure there are a few jokers at the Kos or Media Matters who are running wild on what Politifact has rated comments by, oh, I don't know, Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachmann. Well what did they lie about? "It doesn't matter! It says 'pants on fire!'" Yes, there are idiots everywhere, but most of them claim to be liberal.
It's breeds bad Facebook pages: Let's bring it close to home. Politifact Rhode Island's Facebook page is another breeding ground for idiocy (and probably a good cover from that "comment guidelines" policy) and if you don't believe me look at the comments left by Rob Felber, a hypocrite who does nothing but give comic book fans a bad name. Newsflash: When your favorite books consist of a bunch of comics, your favorite movies consist of a bunch of comic book films, and you Facebook groups consist of multiple "Telling a particular conservative talking head that doesn't have as much influence as I think he does is full of crap," groups, you are not an adult.
If that's not enough look at the comments by David Pepin, reporter for the East Greenwich Pendulum, who apparently thinks two poorly written Projo Politifact articles are enough to prove that the paper isn't a liberal rag. I guess Jon Gibbs gets what he pays for.
(Sidenote: Yes, I just did what I accused Pepin of doing. Except for the fact that I provided evidence and I'm keeping this as short as possible because if you're still reading this it's a Christmas miracle.)
This isn't journalism: Since when the hell is it a reporter's job to interpret the news? Maybe they forgot this at the Pete, but it's not a reporter's job to tell people what's true and what isn't. People laugh at the slogans of Fox News but the one they have that every media outlet in America should use is "We report, you decide," not "We report and we decide who's a liar and who isn't."
The whole Obameter thing is a good idea. So are the GOP Pledge-O-Meter and the Linc-O-Meter (for our genius of a governor). But cherry picking statements by politicians (and blatantly focusing on one party) isn't fact checking and it's not journalism. If you don't believe me wait until the 2012 presidential election and see who gets the Politifact treatment, because I tell you right now, it's going to be an ugly election season. Those who are going to make it ugly should be held accountable. Just don't expect Politifact to do it.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong about this is welcome to speak their mind. But I'm not.
Out.
