TresSugar

Station Censors Mistake in Debate & Fact-Checking Last Night

CitizenSugar — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:00:02 -0700

This is an odd case of censoring that if applied at the debate last night, could have made things look very different. In a congressional debate in Pennsylvania, a TV station has censored remarks made by one of the candidates because they were erroneous. Bleeping out a mistake? Yep, because the statement was about the economy. She said that two major banks had failed - when actually they hadn't - a mistake uncorrected at the time by either her opponent or the moderator was zapped from the debate before it was broadcast.

The general manager of the station who made the decision (after consulting with the FCC and the NAB) said, ''In the end, we did not feel that broadcasting the names of the banks served the public in any way. Because of the economic times we're in . . .a statement on television can cause an immediate effect.'' The debate aired with a disclaimer approved by both candidates.

To see what could have happened if this fact-checking censoring were to have happened at the debate last night, read more.

McCain described Colombia as the "largest agricultural importer of our products." Actually? It's Canada.
Obama said all of McCain's ads have been negative. While that applied for one week recently, at times Obama has run a higher percentage of negatives.
McCain pegged Obama's health care proposal as "single-payer" based on a five-year-old quote. Obama's current proposal is not.
Obama said he's willing to break ranks with Democrats when he's voted with them 97 percent of the time since becoming a senator.

If you want more, the whole debate has been fact-checked so you can separate truth from . . . the bleepable. Is the notion of censoring mistakes a dangerous precedent? Was it OK in the example of the economy? If so, where's the line?

Source

Where I'm Clicking Now: FactCheck.org

LibertySugar — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:00:19 -0800

Candidates and politicians love to throw around facts and statistics. But how can they all be true? The spurious stat slinging was super-evident during last week's Republican debate. Mitt Romney accused John McCain of using the "wrong data" regarding job creation and fee increases while he was governor. The argument sounded very convincing - until Factcheck.org ran the numbers. It looks like McCain was right after all.

FactCheck.org is the perfect place to sort out fact from spin. The website is a nonpartisan nonprofit and accepts no money from corporations, interest groups, or individuals. Its only goal is to decrease deception and increase understanding. Check it out and see how your candidate stacks up!

Fact-Free Campaign Ad?

LibertySugar — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:00:15 -0800

Pricey campaign ads often use moving images, dramatic music, and value-laden but vague words. The people at FactCheck.org put together some tips on how to spot fact-free advertising- ads that convey a positive image of the candidate without relaying specifics. The article offers this advice:

Be critical. When a candidate calls for a strong economy, ask yourself which candidate is calling for a weak economy.
Don't fill in the blanks. Your ideas about strength and patriotism may not match the candidate's.
Dig deeper. Avoid making judgments based on attractive language that could mean anything.

Check out the site for more tips on how to use your heart and your head this election. Have you seen any really fact-free ads this season? Who do you think is the biggest perpetrator of fluffy or misleading campaign ads?

Source

Palin: AP Did "Opposition Research" on Going Rogue

TresSugar — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:00:25 -0800

Sarah Palin blasted the Associated Press yesterday for doing "opposition research," more commonly known as fact-checking, on her new book Going Rogue.

"Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released," she said. "They're now erroneously reporting on the book's contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards."

She wrote this on her Facebook page, which doesn't help her cause, but she is onto something. Going Rogue is embargoed, meaning her publisher will not release advance copies to the press before its on-sale date (tomorrow), and the press, even if it were to happen upon a copy early, is not to review it.

So what did the "opposition researchers" find? Find out after the jump.

Front Page: House Set to Vote on Bailout, Fact-Checking and Debate Quotes, Fewer People Entering US Illegally

CitizenSugar — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:00:32 -0700

House Set to Vote on Bailout:
The US House is debating the Bailout Bill this morning, preparing for a vote expected later today. The version they're considering is heftier version approved by the Senate earlier this week. Speaker Pelosi said of the pending vote, "We're not going to take a bill to the floor that doesn't have the votes. I'm optimistic that we will take a bill to the floor." The House rejected the first Bailout plan on Monday.

Fact-Checking and Debate Quotes:
The morning after the Vice Presidential Debate, analysis is running high. If you're looking to make analysis of your own, individual facts from the debate have now been checked, along with full quotes from the transcripts, so you can make up your own mind. If you missed the excitement, check out our reactions to the debate and the live-comments.
Fewer People Entering US Illegally:
A report released today shows that fewer people are trying to enter the US illegally, and that over the past year there has been no growth in the number of illegal immigrants in residence. For the first time in almost 10 years, the number of people entering illegally was lower than those coming in through legal channels. Experts think the loss of low-wage jobs in the American economy and tighter borders could be the cause.

Source

NRA Aims False Claims at Barack Obama

LibertySugar — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:45:44 -0700

Obama wants to ban handguns, hunting ammo, and the use of guns for home defense?! Not true! But that's what the NRA claims, and it's spending $15 million to get the message out through TV ads and mailers.

One deceptive NRA flier looks like it comes directly from the Obama campaign. Factcheck.org called out the NRA for its false assertions that Obama wants to take away gun rights. Factcheck asserts:

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan."

Obama has consistently said that he believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right. Obama does support national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would reinstate the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.

While it's reassuring to know that someone is looking into the truth behind campaign mailers, it's probably impossible to reach the majority of voters who received a deceptive mailer like this one.

What Did the Press Get Wrong About Mumbai?

LibertySugar — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:00:54 -0800

Slate ran a useful piece this week looking at all the mistakes the press made in its reporting on the Mumbai massacre. Inconsistencies involved the nationalities of the killers (some were British citizens?), the planning of the assault (did the attackers visit Mumbai to spy?), and the targets of the attacks (Americans and Brits, Mumbai's luxury hotels, or anyone and everyone?). The author even takes issue with the fact that multiple publications provided different spellings of the lone remaining gunman Kasab.

The thrust of the article is that newspapers and networks should at least "warn readers of the provisional nature of their hot breaking reports."

When a crisis strikes would you rather get information quickly and do the fact-checking yourself, or do you want the outlets to remind you that they're not 100 percent sure about their reports?

Source

Briefing Book! Bill Clinton Asks Democrats to Deliver Big

LibertySugar — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:30:55 -0700

Democrats: Stumping for the Democratic Party? Bill Clinton urges Virginia Democrats to not just elect Obama, but also to preserve the party. - Politico
Troops: Need some straight talk? Factchecking the candidates' records on funding the troops. - The Caucus
China: Over 100 matchmaking agencies in Shanghai? Shanghai Matchmaking Trade Association signs agreement promising to be honest to their customers. - Shanghaiist
Climate Change: Global Cooling? The new greenhouse effect. - Huffington Post
Terrorism: Needs more context? McCain declines to condemn Virginia Republican's comparison of Obama and Osama. - Talking Points Memo
McCain: Should he skip the next debate? Advice for John McCain. - Townhall

Source

The Morning After: Rebuttals Fly to Palin's Big Speech

CitizenSugar — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:56:20 -0700

No sooner had Sarah Palin's speech ended last night and the cheers faded were people clamoring to hear the response and analysis to it. I was the star of my shuttle bus for having the first-shot email from the Obama camp on my phone - I did a dramatic reading of it for my bus-mates.

The first shot included, "The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speech writer and sounds exactly like the divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years." The kids on the bus noticed the double-helping of Bush immediately. Now, the morning after, the fact-checkers are doing their duty on the speech, including these nuggets:

Palin said: "To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

The rebuttal: Sarah Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62 percent.

To find out what else they zeroed in on, read more.

Palin said: “But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.”

The rebuttal: Obama helped pass the 2007 Ethics Reform Law, which curbed the influence of lobbyists and was described as the “most sweeping since Watergate.” In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a “Gold Standard” ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill’s most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January.

Her speech was wildly and widely well received, with headlines like "Palin delivers star-turning performance at RNC." What do you make of the rebuttals? Was her speech factual?

Source