Jan
9
2025

For Politifact, "Context" is Ass-Covering

(A followup to yesterday's assertion from Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute, a global nonprofit that runs PolitiFact): “I don’t believe we were doing anything, in any form, with bias.” )

Today's example of Politifact "context":

Politifact's article doesn't actually check any facts. It's just a barely-edited press release from Democrats offering their excuses for voting against the Laken Riley Act.

Has Politifact ever offered an equivalent "context"-supplying article on behalf of Republicans? I think not, but let me know if you can dig up any examples.

At NR, Ramesh Ponnuru offers a look at Politifact's Fact-Checking through the Years:

Politifact misrepresents a Republican health-care bill and what the Congressional Budget Office said about it.

Politifact mistakenly fact-checks Kellyanne Conway, too, on health care.

Politifact whitewashes the Democrats’ position on abortions late in pregnancy.

Politifact keeps up the whitewashing, this time getting the New York Times to repeat a false claim.

Even if Politifact had gotten all of these matters right, it would deserve criticism for the selectivity of its targeting of politicians. (When President Biden absurdly claimed in last year’s State of the Union address that he had inherited an economy “on the brink,” it did no fact-check.) But it can’t even be counted on to get the facts right when it does purport to check them.

But about that bill: Ilya Somin is not impressed with it: The Laken Riley Act is Unjust - and a Trojan Horse.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act (LRA), in a 264-159 vote. This legislation - named after a student killed by an undocumented immigrant - is often sold by proponents as a tool for combatting murderers and sex offenders. In reality, it focuses on detaining undocumented immigrants charged with theft-related crimes, including minor ones. It also includes a Trojan horse provision making it easier for states to challenge a variety of programs that make legal migration easier. These policies are unjust, and likely to impede genuine crime-fighting efforts more than they help them.

I'm unconvinced by Ilya's argument, but check it out.

Also of note:

  • We can all stand to learn something. So let's follow Jeff Maurer's lead: I Learned Something From That Weird Ass Jacobin Article That Said Blackstone Owns 1/3 of All Houses.

    Yesterday, a social media dunk-fest ensued after a hilariously wrong statistic was published in the socialist magazine Jacobin. And now, I shall stretch my hamstrings and lace up my Karl Malone signature LA Gear high tops, for I would like to participate in that dunk fest. Here’s the offending line, which was corrected after glass began raining down on Jacobin following a series of Darryl Dawkins-esque backboard shattering dunks:

    Take Blackstone, which owns a third of US housing stock: they can create scarcity and set prices.

    Now: If you’re an economist, realtor, banker, teacher, firefighter, dental hygienist, beekeeper, acrobat, sushi chef, pro wrestler, astrophysicist, karate sensei, or porn star, you know that Blackstone does not own one third of US housing stock. The real number appears to be about 0.042%, so Jacobin was off by a factor of 783. Keeping the “factor of 783” error margin constant, here are some statistics that are equivalent to the one that Jacobin saw fit to print:

    • I am 4,698 feet tall and weigh 64 and a half tons

    • The US Constitution is 184,788 years old

    • The MSRP for a 2025 Nissan Sentra is $16.9 million

    • Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis made $10.9 billion at the box office

    • The Baha Men have had 783 #1 hits, making them by far the most successful recording artist of all time

    [Jacobin's quote slightly edited.]

    But Jeff, what did you learn?

    … I actually read the 2,400 words around that hilariously wrong statistic, and — to my surprise — I learned something. I didn’t become a communist, but I think I might have a better understanding of why some people are drawn to communism.

    Ah.

  • Yesterday, Charlotte Amalie; Tomorrow, Nuuk? A few days ago, I linked to Jonathan Turley's takedown of the anti-Constitutional fantasies of Stacey Plaskett, Delegate to the US House of Representatives from the US Virgin Islands. Which got me wondering: how did we latch onto those islands anyway?

    It turns out there's a rich history involved. But the bottom line was: we bought them.

    For $25 million.

    In gold.

    From … Denmark!

    You know, that country that currently owns … Greenland!

    So there's actual historical precedent.

    By the way, the Wikipedia article claims that $25 million in gold would be "$700 million" today. My calculation differs. (And let's hope I'm not messing things up as badly as that Jacobin guy.) Gold was going for $20.67/oz in 1917. So that works out to approximately 1.21 million ounces of gold.

    Today's gold price as I type: $2683/oz.

    So that 1.21 million ounces of gold: now worth over $3.2 billion.

    I don't know what that would translate to for Greenland. But Wikipedia sucks.

Recently on the book blog: