GameOver22 said:
I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season. |
The only probably with Politifact is they often seem to have their answer first, and then work back what the poltician said. Often lieng or taking out of context what was said to put in a false. While making the point of difference for the other side.... and genrally just picking what stories they want that benefit them.
I stopped trusting Politifact a while ago, when I noticed they were paraphrasing and taking statements out of context to mean things that were never intended. This doesn't help either...
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php
That's why there are so many fact checkers out there right now... they're all biased... and they generally have different answers about what's true, half true or false... even on the same statements. They'll all give you plenty of numbers to back i up too.
Heck you even get blogs fact checking the fact checkers
http://www.politifactbias.com/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-you-should-have.html