HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So Politifact says "...

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:00 PM

So Politifact says "The idea that Obama is a Muslim is factual." I emailed them about it--

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Hank Williams Jr. says Barack Obama is a Muslim


Country singer Hank Williams Jr., who prides himself on being politically incorrect, took a moment during a Sept. 2, 2012, concert in Fort Worth to hammer misgivings about President Barack Obama.

As reported by critic Thor Christensen, who reviewed Williams’ performance at the Stockyards Music Festival for the Dallas Morning News, Williams said to a less-than-unanimous cheer: "We’ve got a Muslim for a president who hates cowboys, hates cowgirls, hates fishing, hates farming, loves gays, and we hate him!"

Most everything in the singer’s statement shakes out as matters of opinion, which can’t be fact-checked. PolitiFact also did not wade in after Williams compared Obama golfing with House Speaker John Boehner to Adolf Hitler playing with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. (After Williams made that October 2011 analogy, he no longer sang the theme song for ESPN’s "Monday Night Football.")

But the idea that Obama is a Muslim is factual.



From Jackpine Radical to Politifact:

"But the idea that Obama is a Muslim is factual."

You have to know that every right-wing bloviator in the Universe will ignore the rest of this article & focus on your one-liner. Thanks for making their work so easy for them.

From Politifact to Jackpine Radical:

Interesting thought. If we’d said “has a factual quality,” better? No one to date, to my knowledge, has interpreted that line from our check in this way.

Jackpine Rdical responds:

First, let me thank you for replying to me. But please let me continue my quibble:

How can you take the statement "the idea that Obama is a Muslim is factual" as meaning anything other than that "Obama is a Muslim?"

If you are trying to say something other than that Obama is a Muslim in this sentence, it's not coming clear to me.

Doesn't the construction "The idea…is factual" mean the same thing as "…is true" (where the ellipsis represents some assertion about the world)?

For example--How would you construe the meaning of the following sentences?:

"The idea that 2+2=4 is factual."

"The idea that Willard Romney is a Mormon is factual."

Update from Politifact:


We check factual claims. In this case, we were explaining that this was a factual claim.

wgs


Me again:

In case you think I'm the only one bemused by your syntax, please see this thread:

(With--you guessed it--a link to this very thread that you are reading.)

Final (I trust) update from Politifact

Do you think my suggested rewording would clarify this sufficiently?

and my reply:

Maybe something like "The claim that Obama is a Muslim can be fact-checked."

And thank you very much for your responsiveness.

69 replies, 4240 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply So Politifact says "The idea that Obama is a Muslim is factual." I emailed them about it-- (Original post)
Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 OP
librechik Oct 2012 #1
ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #39
lolly Oct 2012 #2
BlueStreak Oct 2012 #8
The Wielding Truth Oct 2012 #17
SalviaBlue Oct 2012 #3
sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #12
SalviaBlue Oct 2012 #38
BlueStreak Oct 2012 #4
skinnertest Oct 2012 #5
Voice for Peace Oct 2012 #6
JoePhilly Oct 2012 #7
BlueStreak Oct 2012 #11
JoePhilly Oct 2012 #37
myrna minx Oct 2012 #9
Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #19
sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #10
banned from Kos Oct 2012 #13
sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #16
Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #14
progressoid Oct 2012 #15
Scuba Oct 2012 #18
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #20
cui bono Oct 2012 #24
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #28
cui bono Oct 2012 #31
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #33
Turborama Oct 2012 #60
cui bono Oct 2012 #63
Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #26
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #29
Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2012 #53
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #57
Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2012 #61
DevonRex Oct 2012 #32
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #35
Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2012 #51
0rganism Oct 2012 #64
cui bono Oct 2012 #21
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #23
cui bono Oct 2012 #25
Oilwellian Oct 2012 #44
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #58
markpkessinger Oct 2012 #48
Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2012 #52
cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #59
reusrename Oct 2012 #62
0rganism Oct 2012 #65
GeorgeGist Oct 2012 #22
WCGreen Oct 2012 #27
reflection Oct 2012 #30
Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2012 #54
reflection Oct 2012 #66
Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2012 #68
ieoeja Oct 2012 #34
Bucky Oct 2012 #36
Oilwellian Oct 2012 #46
hay rick Oct 2012 #40
noiretextatique Oct 2012 #41
ProSense Oct 2012 #42
Turborama Oct 2012 #43
NashvilleLefty Oct 2012 #45
NashvilleLefty Oct 2012 #49
Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #55
apples and oranges Oct 2012 #56
Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #67
Zorra Oct 2012 #69
markpkessinger Oct 2012 #47
upi402 Oct 2012 #50

Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:03 PM

1. It is a fact that some believe he is a Muslim. Therefore the idea he is Muslim is factual.

That is just silly. Some people believe the world is flat. Therefore the idea that the world is flat is factual.

This takes the cake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:27 PM

39. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:04 PM

2. Distinction between "factual" and "statement of fact"

A statement of fact is a statement than can be proven or disproven. It doesn't mean it's true, only that it CAN be determined whether it's true.

I'm pretty sure "factual" means true. Certainly that's how it's commonly understood.

They seem to be either confused, or are deliberately confusing the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:10 PM

8. No. Both of those imply a factual quality. This is simply an ASSERTION by Mr. Williams Jr.

It is the process of fact checking that elevates an ASSERTION to the level of FACT.

Asserting something is not sufficient to refer to it an manner that includes the word "fact".

It is amazing that a group calling itself PolitiFACT has such trouble distinguishing between an ASSERTION and a FACT. But I guess we should not be surprised with those jokers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:27 PM

17. Yes, they should ended the sentence with the phrase - but it is not factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:05 PM

3. Unf#%@king believable.

They should not be able to call themselves XXXfact. They are Politispin, Politispew, Politicrap.


Let us know if they respond again. They may not be able to deal with your logic. But for trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SalviaBlue (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:17 PM

12. They are also bigots it seems. What would be the problem with a politician

being a Muslim? And why do they think it is?

Sick of this form of bigotry.

For a while the bigots in this country were marginalized and had to keep their hate to themselves mostly. But with the War on Terror, and the outright and acceptable attacks on Muslim Americans, they were allowed back out of their closets with their white sheets and hate now fully acceptable again.

Shame on them for feeding the hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:26 PM

38. You know, you are right.

I mean if being Muslim is so noteworthy, then being Morman surely is too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:07 PM

4. What does it tell you when PolitiFACT doesn't know the difference between an ASSERTION and a FACT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:08 PM

5. Here is the link.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/sep/04/hank-williams-jr/hank-williams-jr-says-barack-obama-muslim/

I might suggest something like this:

"But claiming that Obama is a Muslim is not an opinion. It purports to be a statement of fact -- and therefore it can be fact-checked."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:09 PM

6. ideas are not equal to facts

It's a poorly worded sentence that has no actual meaning.
I'm surprised their response to you was so dull witted.

Ideas are not facts, they're two different things altogether.

They might have said:

"The claim that Obama is a Muslim can be fact-checked.
It is false."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:10 PM

7. Ask them if the "idea" that Mitt is "not a true Christian" is factual ... if so, they should

write an article that says so, as a way to explain their view that the "idea" that Obama is a "Muslim" is also factual.

Both "ideas" are factual, or neither one is factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

11. Both are ASSERTIONS with no basis in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:23 PM

37. Actually ... there is some "fact" to the Mormon issue.

Mitt is a Mormon, that is a FACT.

The question is, "Are Mormons Christians?"

That part is open to debate.

The right wing and the GOP to not want to have that debate in public.

They are happy to claim Obama is NOT a true Christians, and then also claim that he is a Muslim, which if true would make him a non-Christian.

But the GOP and the media, do not want to allow the Evangelical base of the GOP to have the debate about whether Mormons are in "fact" true Christians.

And I would love to see the media bring this FACT to the table. Obama's Christianity was an issue in 2008 and remains so in 2012.

Yet Mitt's Christianity, or his potential "non-Christian religion" is a NON TOPIC in 2012.

Once again, if you are a white Republican, such issues are unimportant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:11 PM

9. Jackpine, please sent this exchange to Rachel Maddow's team. "Politifact" and their "fact checking"

drive her to annoyance. They're purposefully obtuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:38 PM

19. I was about to suggest the same thing

Rachel refuses to consider Politifact as unbiased. And some of their verdicts have been downright bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:11 PM

10. And so what if he is? Do we need publications like this feeding the rabid bigotry

of the Far Right? Maybe they should explain their bigoted attitude.

I would have no problem with a Muslim President so long as, like any other politician, s/he keeps their religion out of politics.

Bigotry, will we ever be able to end it in this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

13. because an openly Muslim person could never be elected nationally

 

just like an atheist (me) could not.

The "so what" argument fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:26 PM

16. It only fails because people are so fearful of speaking the truth.

We heard that no Muslim could ever be elected to any office not so long ago. I disagreed with that also. And it has been proven to be wrong.

I don't cater to bigots. Feel free to do so if you wish. When bigotry rears its ugly head as it has been doing since the beginning of WOT, and people simply throw their hands in the air as you just did, all that does is feed it.

Muslim Americans have as much right to run for office as anyone else. And while you are correct that we remain a country so immersed in bigotry as we have found out, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out at every opportunity. Bigotry should never be allowed to go unchallenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:21 PM

14. I agree with your sentiment.

I would not mind a Muslim or atheist or whatever in the White House (always presuming, of course, that they have no intention of inflicting their particular delusional system on the rest of us), but you have to know that in this benighted, willfully ignorant land at this time, a whole lot of voters would consider the idea of a Muslim President intolerable. Enough, in fact, to put the Mormon on the White Horse in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:23 PM

15. Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:35 PM

18. I suspect Obama's thinking is more science-based than faith-based. Regardless ....

... PolitiFlawed is admitting that they don't care about the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:40 PM

20. Get a DICTIONARY. It will save embarrassment and time emailing people

Factual doesn't mean True. It is poorly worded, since "idea" is a vague term, but factual does not mean true.

It means pertaining to fact. Something that can be said to be true or false, as a matter of fact.

I would certainly have phrased it differently myself, anticipating that some people would erroneously misread it. And the use of "idea" is bound to confuse. It is not likely to win any writing awards.

But geez... how outraged can you really get based on not knowing what words mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:52 PM

24. I disagree. Factual means pertaining to facts.

The idea that Obama is a Muslim is not a fact and therefore not factual.

Factual does not mean that something can be determined by whether or not it is a fact, it means that whatever you are referring to as factual is... factual! That is is made up of facts.

A factual report is one based on facts, not one that can be determined to be true or not by using facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:57 PM

28. Meaning is not derived from whatever *you* think words mean

Factual means what it means. You saying that you think it means something different will not change that.

Many people misuse the word, so Politifact would be advised to anticipate that widespread ignorance and phrase things more clearly.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:02 PM

31. Just as you saying what *you* think it means doesn't change the fact of what it means.

We both have the same definition in our posts, that factual means pertaining to facts. Pertaining to facts means that there are facts involved in whatever is being described as factual, not that facts can be used to determine whether or not it is factual. See below to be sure we have the same definition of pertain.

per·tain
    Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to have reference or relation; relate: documents pertaining to the lawsuit.
2.
to belong or be connected as a part, adjunct, possession, or attribute.
3.
to belong properly or fittingly; be appropriate.


Btw... no need to bring terms such as ignorance into this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:07 PM

33. Since you cannot even accept what factual means there is nothing to talk about.

Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:58 PM

60. You won this subthread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Reply #60)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:35 AM

63. YAY!!!



What's my prize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:53 PM

26. That would be "verifiable," "empirical," "testable" in my dialect of English.

Definition of FACTUAL

1
: of or relating to facts <a factual error>
2
: restricted to or based on fact <a factual statement>
— fac·tu·al·i·ty noun
— fac·tu·al·ly adverb
— fac·tu·al·ness noun
See factual defined for English-language learners »
See factual defined for kids »
Examples of FACTUAL

That statement is not factual.
a report filled with factual errors
the factual aspects of the case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:58 PM

29. Correct. So what is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:36 PM

53. The point is that you are wrong and have been proven wrong. You should just stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:45 PM

57. Welcome to DU, and buy yourself a fucking dictionary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #57)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:04 PM

61. You can't consider yourself seriously interested in facts if you can read my post about the synonyms

along with all of the other valid challenges to your point and still be clinging to your original belief.

And thanks for the hearty welcome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:05 PM

32. Google definition:

fact
/fakt/
Noun
A thing that is indisputably the case.
Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
Synonyms
reality - deed - actuality - truth - case - circumstance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:09 PM

35. And that is why nobody uses Google dictionary. It is practically a slang dictionary.

Look up enormity and fulsome on Google and you will get similar results.

In any event, since the meaning of the phrase in question is absolutely plain in context this is one of the sillier recreational outrages I've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:31 PM

51. Thesaurus definition for "factual": real, correct Synonyms: absolute, accurate, actual,

authentic, card-carrying, certain, circumstantial, close, credible, descriptive, exact, faithful, genuine, hard, kosher*, legit, legitimate, literal, objective, on the level, positive, precise, righteous, specific, straight from horse's mouth, sure, sure-enough, true, true-to-life, unadorned, unbiased, undoubted, unquestionable, valid, veritable

http://thesaurus.com/browse/factual?s=t&ld=1112

You are incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:47 AM

64. the problem is, "factual" has both meanings

fac·tu·al   
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to facts; concerning facts: factual accuracy.
2.
based on or restricted to facts: a factual report.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factual?s=t

so on the one hand, you (and the author of the article in question, very likely) interpret "factual" as distinguishing that which can be verified from that which cannot. this is valid. there is nothing inherently wrong with this position. unfortunately, it happens to be ambiguous wording.

difficulty arises when the second definition comes into play. describing something as "factual" implies that it has grounding in fact, that it is supported by other facts. it is pretty much a synonym for "true".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:48 PM

21. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is NOT factual.

That some ignorant and bigoted people have this idea IS factual.

Something being factual means it is based on fact, not that it can be determined by facts, which is what Politifact seems to think.

A factual report is a report filled with facts, it is not a report that can be determined by facts.

Got that Politifact?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:51 PM

23. The primary definition of "factual" is not "true."

Sorry, but it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:53 PM

25. I responded to your previous post if you want to continure there in one place. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:28 PM

44. Webster Dictionary disagrees

a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth

Related to FACT
Synonyms: actuality, factuality, materiality, reality
Antonyms: irreality, unreality
Related Words: authenticity, genuineness, truth, verity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:47 PM

58. Oh FFS... how low will people go?

That is quite obviously not the first definition. In fact, that is the definition for a noun, not an adjective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:35 PM

48. As others have pointed out . . .

. . . Some dictionaries do list "true" as being a valid definition of "factual." But irrespective of what ANY dictionary says, the ulimate determinant is popular usage, and in popular usage, "factual" is most often deemed to mean "true."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:34 PM

52. Yes, that's what the majority of American English speakers will interpret it to mean. And, as I

pointed out in an earlier response, synonyms for "factual" include: absolute, accurate, actual, authentic, card-carrying, certain, circumstantial, close, credible, descriptive, exact, faithful, genuine, hard, kosher*, legit, legitimate, literal, objective, on the level, positive, precise, righteous, specific, straight from horse's mouth, sure, sure-enough, true, true-to-life, unadorned, unbiased, undoubted, unquestionable, valid, veritable

And, what I didn't add was that the antonyms given at the link are: biased, false, imprecise, incorrect, unfactual, untruthful

http://thesaurus.com/browse/factual?s=t&ld=1112

edited for white space

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:55 PM

59. No, in this case the ultimate determinant is context.

When there is ambiguity as to which meaning is being used you look to context.

And no sensible person could fail to understand the (clumsy) phrase in context, unless he or she was really excited about getting upset over something they imagined.

We have a word used in a way unfamiliar to some readers.

We have a full context explaining how the word is being used. The preceding passages are like a road map to the factual versus subjective distinction being drawn.

Why would any reader chose to misread it, rather than consider that the odds of them misreading something are higher than the odds of politifact stating that Obama is a Muslim.

Sorry, no sympathy for the recreational outrage crowd.

They wanted to misunderstand because it seemed entertaining to do so and now they are stuck in their positions. Sad shit..

I'm out of this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #59)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:32 AM

62. intentionally obtuse

 

Their claim is false, no matter how weasel-wordy you want to make it.

And as for context, in this case it is not important at all. Of course folks will quote that sentence out of context, that's what the discussion is about, and of course that is Politifalse's whole purpose for coming up with this "clumsy" construct in the first place.

They are just one more lyin' sac'o'shit on the intertubes.

Their claim is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #59)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:58 AM

65. ideally, you would be correct, but this is politics

Jackpine's complaint is not that "people will read the article and misunderstand." Quite the contrary, the people who will misunderstand won't ever read the article.

You see, if that wording stands, by this time tomorrow, dozens of rightwing assholes with AM radio contracts will have said to millions of listeners, "Politifact confirms that Hank William's statement is factual! There it is, Obama's a Muslim, just like I've been telling you all along."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:53 PM

27. I FIRMLY Believe that Mitt Romney is not qualified to be president that means it

must be factual because I said it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:01 PM

30. Outrageous. Politifact knows exactly what they are doing with that careful phrasing.

And it is shameful. SHAMEFUL. It could be reworded in several ways so as to eliminate the confusion, but they clearly have an agenda. I will never read anything they write again. Indefensible. I don't care if they have a flaming peg-meter emblazoned with Pants-On-Fire written on it. They know who they're dealing with, and that is people who will lift any little snippet of text out of context to suit their needs. FIX IT, POLITIFACT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reflection (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:07 PM

54. Actually, it IS a FACT that "Hank Williams Jr. says Barack Obama is a Muslim." Here is my email to

Politifact regarding that entry:

Thank you for correcting your decision on the Hank Williams "Obama is a Muslim" Claim. Your initial handling was deeply flawed. And there is still something very important that you don't seem to have considered, which related not just to this particular judgement.

Please keep in mind, what you are dealing with is heavily dependent on the use and interpretation of language. You need to be extremely precise.

Technically, it is a *fact* that Hank Williams, Jr. *said* President Obama is a muslim. However, is anyone actually questioning whether or not Williams said this? No, so why fact check that specific thing.

If you are intentionally fact-checking whether or not Williams said it, it would be you job to clearly point out, to avoid the obvious potential confusion, that despite the *fact* that Williams *said* that Obama is a muslim, that the president is not *in fact* a muslim.

I would be remiss, and perhaps you would too, not to point out that an implication in all this is the idea that there is something wrong with being a muslim. I disagree with that notion.

As Rachel Maddow has pointed out, you have made some huge mistakes recently. Yet many people still look to you for facts. Please take your job more seriously. It is very serious business for our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Reply #54)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:07 AM

66. Wonderful response.

You have a way with words. Well done, sir/madam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reflection (Reply #66)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:44 PM

68. Well, thanks, but I guess PolitiCrap doesn't agree, since they haven't bothered to even respond to

my email. Hacks. Maybe I'll annoy them and resend.

Oh, and right back atcha, since I loved your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:08 PM

34. Politifact needs to learn phrases like, "lie by omission" and "false".


It is factual that some morons have this idea. So the idea that Obama is a Muslim is factual. But the idea that Obama is a Muslim is false. Not a lie if the person stating it believes it to be true.

Every time FNC says "New York Times reported that Al Gore claimed to have discovered Love Canal" they are technically factual. Because the New York Times did report that. A week later they admitted their error and corrected it.

Continuing the meme was technically factual, but a lie by omission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:14 PM

36. Maybe they meant because his father converted to Islam for a while, Obama's genetically Muslim.

Sure, it's not scientifically possible, but that doesn't mean it's not factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:30 PM

46. Wow, religion is now a genetic thing?

Who knew???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:44 PM

40. Politiflipflop.

Politifact wants to have it both ways. The concluding paragraph of their article, in all its glory: "Obama is not a Muslim. This has been clear for years. This claim sets the woods Pants on Fire."

So people who want to claim he's a Muslim can quote from the article as can those of us who know he isn't. We're all entitled to pick and choose our facts in the fact-checking market.

Politifact completes the journey from Pulitzer Prize to irrelevancy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:16 PM

41. i don't see any definition of "factual" that means you just make shit up

1.

of, relating to, or characterized by facts



2.

of the nature of fact; real; actual

there is nothing "factual" about the claim that Obama is a Muslim. that claim is not related to or charaterized by any actual fact; it is not real or based on anything actual or real. it's bullshit, not factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:35 PM

42. Politifact is in the tank for Romney:

PolitiFact Ignores Romney Statements On Auto Rescue

PolitiFact ignored Mitt Romney's repeated statements about the auto industry to criticize President Obama for saying during the third presidential debate that Romney opposed government assistance for U.S. auto companies.

During the debate, Obama said to Romney, "You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true."

PolitiFact declared Obama's statement "mostly false." In its analysis, PolitiFact spent a great deal of time trying to parse a phrase from Romney's widely discussed 2008 New York Times op-ed on the subject of the auto industry rescue. In the op-ed, Romney stated: "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing."

But PolitiFact ignored other remarks from Romney on the subject. As The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn noted, Romney clearly stated in a November 2011 Republican primary debate that the auto industries should have been forced to go bankrupt without any government involvement.

- more -

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/24/politifact-ignores-romney-statements-on-auto-re/190892



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:11 PM

43. How about this, "But the idea that Obama is a Muslim is not fictional."?

Or, "But the idea that Obama is a Muslim is not untrue."?

No, that doesn't work either, does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:30 PM

45. Simply, there are NO facts to support the idea

that Obama is a Muslim. If Politifact believes there are, I would personally like to see them.

They are questioning you on a matter of semantics, but still obscuring the facts which is unconscionable for a "fact-checking" site. They could say "there is a wide-spread belief that Obama is Muslim, but there are no facts to support this belief". Or, they could say "there are no verifiable facts to the widespread belief that Obama is a Muslim".

Thank you for the link - I will attempt to help them clear up this error on their part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:37 PM

49. Correction - apparently you made an impression!

After visiting the link, it has been updated:

Our ruling

Obama is not a Muslim. This has been clear for years. This claim sets the woods Pants on Fire.


Awesome job, dude!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #49)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:28 PM

55. Here's how it now reads.


"However, his reference to Obama as a Muslim struck us as factually checkable.

Such claims also have been gauged before -- and found lacking in evidence."

I'm happy to confirm that they were reasonable about changing the text when the problems were pointed out.

I already sent my thanks to them for doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #55)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:40 PM

56. That's not much better

Why is it so hard for them to make a succint, ONE sentence statement?

There is no evidence to support Hank's claim that Obama is a Muslim.

PERIOD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apples and oranges (Reply #56)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:45 AM

67. I disagree--

not because the wording is particularly felicitous, but because it remves the possibility of Fox of someone saying

"Politifact calls Williams' claim that Obama is a Muslim 'factual!'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #55)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

69. Thank you. Great catch and solution!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:32 PM

47. Politifiction is beneath contempt n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:42 PM

50. Nutjobs say he's Muslim - see WIKIPEDIA

Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories—allegations that he secretly follows a non-Christian religion, or that he is the antichrist—have been suggested ever since Barack Obama began his campaign to become President of the United States in 2007. As with the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, these false claims are promoted by various fringe theorists and political opponents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread