Is this the same Politifact that named as the Lie of the Year something that was functionally and factually true...Namely that Republicans voted to end Medicare?

Steve, here is the Politifact article(s) to which you refer.

Personally, I very much appreciate Politifact's extensive research into the claims that were being made on both sides of the fence, as I don't know that I could have dug up so much background detail even if I had the time.

And personally, I agree with Politifact that it was not accurate for Dems to have claimed that Repubs "voted to end Medicare."

Per the points Politifact makes in this linked analysis:

1) the Ryan plan would have privatized/voucherized--but not ended--Medicare, and

2) the Ryan plan did not impact seniors currently on Medicare (or even those expected to go on Medicare for ten years into the future).

I trust you know that I'm somebody who was and is extremely skeptical of proposals like Ryan's, but all the same I appreciate the opportunity Politifact gives me to review the pertinant factual information surrounding contentious issues and reach my own conclusions.

Too many times, we see editorials posing as "straight news," or else "straight news" severely lacking in background info (especially when we rely on broadcast news).

That's why I like Politifact.

I wasn't overly impressed by their bottom-line on the Campfield drug testing claim. But I did enjoy the read.

Taking a publicly funded and managed program and turning it over to the private sector is ending Medicare. Reusing the brand is the big lie. It would be like taking the Cadillac badge off of an Escalade and putting it on a Yellow Cab and claiming it's saving the Escalade. Politifact isn't to be trusted. Do your own reasoning and fact checking.

Guys, guys--please allow me to respectfully point out a coupla things...

First, Gonzone, did you read Jack's editorial column Sunday about how the KNS relationship with Politifact came about? He said that the conversation with them began about two years ago, lapsed, then resumed some months back.

In fact, it sounds as if the conversation resumed at about the time Politifact was bashing Repub's bald-faced lies about "Obamacare" (on which Politifact did a darned good job, I'll add).

It appears more likely, then, that if KNS were impressed with any of Politifact's efforts at that time, they were impressed not with Politifact's bashing Dem's characterization of the Ryan Plan, but with their bashing Repubs' characterization of "Obamacare!"

As to this larger question of whether Repub's proposals for Medicare (or for public education) would "end" either longstanding institution, I still say our shared concern is better stated as a concern for the manner in which Repubs would change either institution.

So I charge "hyperbole" on your part.

And that's what Politifact does so well--strip contentious issues of hyperbole so that any underlying concerns may be more carefully examined.

Now, I think Steve's point that the Repubs would have "rebranded" Medicare (or that they're trying to "rebrand" public education now) is quite astute, too.

BUT we still shouldn't suggest to those that go to the polls and sign their ballots with an "X" that Repubs are flat out ceasing to ensure any healthcare for seniors or any education for youngsters at all.

Jmcnair says maybe there's a distinction to be made in what constitutes an "end" to a program?

Yes, there is a distinction to be made, and it's that you and I may speak figuratively on such subjects, but Politifact speaks quite literally on the same subjects.

But that everyone serving in Congress were also speaking with such precision...

Note that it's Memphis, Knoxville and EW Scripps journalists working in conjunction w/ the Politifact folks. It's not just Politifact folks.

It's the parsing of the word "end" that gives cover to the Republican efforts to end Medicare.

Oh, it's absolutely the case that Politifact "parses" the language. That's what I meant when I said they "strip contentious issues of hyperbole" and it's essentially What They Do.

Take a look at the four analyses up at KNS right now:

--Corn Commentary: U.S. Rep. Stephen Fincher is "the only working farmer currently serving in the House." It's certainly true that there are darn few farmers left in Congress, but Politifact takes exception to this trade journal having asserted that Fincher is the only farmer remaining.

--Steve Cohen: "The Republicans have never done anything really to balance the budget." Republicans may or may not have undertaken enough efforts over the years to balance the budget, but Politifact takes exception to Cohen saying they've never made any such effort.

--Marsha Blackburn: New energy standards will take away "our freedom of choice and selection in the light bulbs we have in our homes." While these new energy standards will lessen our ability to purchase incandescent bulbs for just every application, Politifact call Blackburn out for implying that the standards will obliterate choice altogether.

--Stacey Campfield: Says a drug test can be performed for "just $4 or $5." Detractors are correct that drug testing recipients of certain social services would carry many costs beyond just the cost of the test itself, but Politifact affirms Campfield's assertion that just the test itself would, indeed, cost as little as $4 or $5.

Maybe some people will read that last analysis, for example, and conclude that it's Politifact's endorsement for Campfield's proposal to drug test recipients of social services--but personally I think that would be a knee-jerk reaction to the piece.

A closer read will reveal that Politifact's focus in the piece is not to support or denounce the proposal, but only to determine whether Campfield's single data item is credible enough that it should be considered among all the data persons wanting to weigh the issue should mull.

And just as Politifact doesn't comment directly on the advisability of any such proposal, I don't mean to do that here, either.

I'm just trying to explain what constitutes their service to readers and how it is they go about delivering that service.

Here is Politifact's seven-page file on Mitt Romney.

Looks like they've found 62% of his statements to be "Half True," "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire."

I think the whole exercise puts way too much focus on the handful of statements they choose to fact-check. Most if not all of these statements are irrelevant or non sequitur. There's not enought context or analysis.

I agree with the cynics that the whole Politifact phenom is another sign of a massive fail for the institute of journalism. At this stage in the super BS era maybe editors like McElroy (and WUOT news director Matt S-Powell) think people need something bright and shiny to stem the tide, and maybe it will do some good, but I have doubts and think it mostly marks a sad state of affairs in their profession.

Fascinating...except for the addition of one very minor issue "factcheck" of farmers in Congress, this hasn't been updated in over a week...and given some the events of the past week...really? Pretty lame effort thus far.

Ashley, Jack said on his blog that the Politifact team is to "produce 3-4 Truth-O-Meter rulings a week, and to rate Gov. Bill Haslam's progress on his campaign promises on the Haslam-O-Meter, which launches Sunday."

FC, I'll have to agree with you that this week's "rulings" do seem a bit focused on statements more "irrelevant or non sequitur" in nature than those we're accustomed to seeing them examine.

Well, this week's "rulings" were the team's very first efforts AND the state house is only recently heating up. Hopefully, we'll see Politifact better focused on the action there soon.

However, if it's this format you folks object to, that you seem to think "oversimplifies" political issues (if I'm understanding you correctly), I guess that will remain unchanged.

I will just remind one last time that Politifact doesn't examine political issues so much as they examine political speech--one utterance at a time.

It's then up to us readers to collect and digest a series of their examinations on the same topic to arrive at some information we can use to think through a given issue for ourselves.

Possibly it's just the unintuitive--the plodders like me--who appreciate their help
:-)

(EDIT: And I just this minute see that I indicated when I put up this article that they "examine issues." That was my misstatement, which may have had a lot to do with the course this conversation took!)

Rachel Maddow weighs in.

This one is just plain funny so I had to post it here.

(link...)