How do you feel about FactCheck.org?

[SHRED]

http://www.factcheck.org/

They seem to be trying to appear middle of the road.
No institution is "neutral".
What is the Annenberg Public Policy Center's agenda?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. They were fair during the election but they took the Pro-Bush side...

on the Social Security battle. They shruged off the
Pro-Privatisation camps distortion while PLAYING UP the Anti-Privatisation camps (that's us).

Remember, this is the Annenberg School. Annenberg was an infamous Repug. Take whatever you see there with a grain of salt.

[trotsky]

2. In trying to be "middle of the road"...

they usually end up equating the most egregious of Republican lies with minor Democratic ones - to make both sides look "just as bad."

That's just my observation, though.

[SHRED]

3. I noticed that too

It's like when I talk politics with a rightie and reality gets a bit heavy for them they always, and I mean ALWAYS, drop the cop-out line on me, "Well all politicians corrupt". Cowards!

[marcologico]

4. yep they rolled out that "fair and balanced" routine all summer and fall

to make SBVT the equivalent of some "expert's" quibble over Kerry's deficit projections. Big time Bush whores.

[SHRED]

7. Yes

As I recall they did give the SBV Liars airtime, as if they were legit.

[aaronnyc]

5. I think it's great

It is critical to have a source which calls politicans out, when they are lying. The MSM is afraid to call out, "bullshit", even when they know that politicans and politically funded organizations are actually lying.

I know that the Annenberg Public Policy Center is generally considered to be non-partisan. I can't imagine that they if they had either a liberal or conservative agenda, that they would come out with a website like Factcheck.org (neither side would appreciate it).

I am sure that some here on DU will bash Factcheck.org because it takes a lot of shots at liberal groups and politicans. Personally, I think we should have a little perspective, and realize that both sides "stretch the truth" for public support. Having a website which calls out both sides when they do this is a valuable public service IMO.

[marcologico]

8. Sure, that's what they want you to think, and it sounds pretty convincing

when you hear it on NPR or read it in the NYT, but it's a load of crap. Look at some of the headlines on their front page roght now:


MoveOn.org Social Security Ad, 02.01.2005

"Liberal group's ad falsely claims Bush plan would cut benefits 46 percent."


False Attacks Over "Windfalls" to Wall Street, 03.03.2005

"We find that brokers netted only 16 cents in fees to manage a $10,000 retirement account under the federal retirement system on which Bush is modeling his private Social Security accounts."

Fair and balanced my ass.

[aaronnyc]

10. Attacking both sides is fair and balanced

Why do you fail to mention that the top 2 stories on their front page are attacks on conservatives for lying about social security? They attack both sides relatively equally. Would it be more "fair and balanced" if they only attacked Republicans?

If you believe that only conservatives lie; you don't understand the nature of politics in America.
Both sides pour millions of dollars into these public campaigns. Both have campaign consultants who basically specialize in selling a product. Liberal political advisors and conservative political advisors both went to the same elite schools, both get paid huge salaries, and both play the same game. This game includes lying (until the point when it backfires politically).

Did you read the two articles which you cited above? In what part of the articles do you think that factcheck.org is being dishonest? It strikes me as an accurate analysis.
While I don't support Bush's social security plan, I am willing to recognize that both sides of this issue are often "fast and loose" with the facts.

[marcologico]

19. Theoretically. p.s. if you think the broker's fee on ANY fund is .0016%

annually there's a bridge I'd like to sell you. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

30. The difference in the quality

They're all in a twirl over the 46%, but it is true. It's just not true for current benefits, but Moveon doesn't specifically say that.

As opposed to the virtual shit storm of lies by the Bush's on SS. It's literally like saying Gandhi squashed a bug so therefore he's a killer like Hitler. That's what factcheck does, that's what the media does. That's how people end up thinking Kerry attacked Bush more than Bush attacked Kerry, even though you couldn't even begin to sort through all the lies Bush has told in 4 years.

[ComerPerro]

9. As someone mentioned above

anyone who gives sleazy opportunists like the Swift Boat Liars any shred of crediblity has a partisan agenda.

[sandnsea]

29. No kidding

"If I listen long enough to you,
I'll find a way to believe that it's all true,
knowing, that you lied, straight-faced, while I cried,
Still I look to find a reason to believe."

WAAAY too many people bending over backwards to believe Bush isn't as bad as he really is.

[Bill Mahar]

6. I don't have the details, I'll look them up.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

11. Right Wing Lies masquerading as truth-seeking

Most offensive site on the internet -- and that includes kiddie porn.

They puff themselves up as straight arrows seeking nothing but the truth (and they call the Right on the worst of their offenses -- like the Swift Boat Veterans ads during the 2004 campaign), but make absolutely no doubt about it -- they're carrying water for the
Corporate Right.

Their piece on Social Security is utter and complete hogwash. "The problem, of course, is that the taxes now in place won't pay for the future growth of benefits built into the current system. The gap is estimated at $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years -- and is projected to get steadily worse after that." Back in the day, people used to feel it necessary to put in a footnote after a statement like that. Says fucking who? Says fucking Stephen Goss, a profoundly right-wing actuary at the Social Security Administration.

When cornered by the SFGate about Bush Administration estimates that two-thirds of workers would sign up for private accounts, Goss admitted that the figure, provided to the White House by his office, was nothing more than a guess. What a hell of a thing for an actuarial to say. He's simply cooking the books to please his boss.

And this is who FactCheck.org is relying on for their information.

Pure and unadulterated right-wing bullshit. Bank on it.

[priller]

12. They're not very good

Go to Snopes.com for a better debunking type of site.

[_TJ_]

14. Is Snopes on the level?

The pro-bush stories all seem to be true and the anti-bush stories
false. I find it hard to believe!

TJ

[ebayfool]

16. Are you on the level? Didn't think so! n/t

[_TJ_]

17. What's the problem friend?

[ebayfool]

23. The pro-bush stories all seem to be true and the anti-bush stories false?

You believe this?

[_TJ_]

24. no, that's why I asked if it was on the level.

[ebayfool]

26. Here, use this (for us reading challenged folk) - saves misunderstanding

when posting facetiously!




on edit: Sometimes it's easy to misconstrue intent, sounded like you were agreeing, apologies!

[dkofos]

13. They are wrong too often

They have lost their credibility as far as I am concerned

[cestpaspossible]

15. Look up the Annenberg's family's campaign contributions.

That should tell you all you want to know.

[cestpaspossible]

22. link

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Didn't Uncle Dick slip up and admit that site was a GOP front?

I believe it was on Meet The Press?

[phish420]

20. They are a CIA front group

They are just a propganda machine...dispell a few easy rumors early on to build trust, then you can post anything and people will believe it. They do not check facts, they spew propoganda

[Clarkie1]

21. During the campaign, I found them very non-partisan.

They called Bush's lies, and Kerry's exagerrations.

Both Bush and Kerry issued many misleading statements during the campaign, but when I checked the numbers, I found factcheck.org had more articles calling Bush on misleading advertising and statements than Kerry. That is not to say Kerry didn't stretch the truth a lot as well.

Overall, I found it an extemeley useful site. It reminded me why most Americans are sick of of politics and politicians.

[marcologico]

25. When they start calling their own lies I'll start taking them seriously.

n/t

[Clarkie1]

31. What lies?

Please be specific. Do you have any evidence?

I thought they were very good at calling Bush on his misrepresentation and lying, and Kerry on his mischaracterizations and stretching of the truth at times.

Overall, they hurt Bush more than Kerry because Bush had less of a regard for the truth than Kerry. Although they both behaved like politicians.

Which does get old after awhile.

[marcologico]

33. "private SS accounts yield very little profit to the securities industry"

"New information turned up by FactCheck.org shows that the type of private Social Security accounts being proposed by President Bush would yield very little profit to the securities industry, contrary to persistent claims of a potentially huge 'windfall' to Wall Street."

link: http://www.factcheck.org/article310.html

[Clarkie1]

34. Do you have evidence that is a lie or inaccurate?

[marcologico]

35. Bush hasn't delivered ANY plan yet, so it's a lie, it's inaccurate, and

it's propaganda. Does that clear things up? :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

36. Not really. Have you even read the article?

:eyes:

Some critics of private accounts have argued for years that they would create a large business opportunity for the securities industry, but earlier studies rested on the assumption that accounts would be allowed to invest in a large number of actively managed funds offered by Wall Street. That turned out to be a false assumption. Bush is explicitly proposing accounts that would be administered by the federal government, and which would offer only a handful of passively managed "index" funds, similar to the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. (See "How Accounts Would Work")

Do you also disagree with this article?

Bush's State of the Union: Social Security "Bankruptcy?"
That term could give the wrong idea. Bush also makes private accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not.

Summary

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life.

http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html

[marcologico]

37. Yes, I read the article, and it's 100% junk. A bunch of guestimates and

and Bush-friendly assumptions, and about as far from a "fact check" as Chimp is from solvency:

"'We can't confirm it for competititve reasons,' said Tom Taggart, managing director of Barclays. But he added, 'We're good at managing large pools of money cost-effectively.'"

Okay, if you say so, Mr. FactCheck. :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

38. I don't know if factcheck.org is always right with their "facts"

But they do seem to hold both sides of the partisan divide equally to task, and I do appreciate that.

You didn't answer my second question, by the way.

At least we can agree to agree that privatization of social security is a bad idea, if not the value of a site that holds both democrats and republicans accountable for their political propaganda.

[marcologico]

40. But I don't think they ARE equal. They pick nits in Dem ads and give Bush

license to steal. That SS article is pure hooey and we both know it. Look what happened to Chimp's drug "assistance" program: it turned into an obscene give-away to drug companies that will cost trillions and actually make drugs more expensive. I don't see any reason to think SS "reform" would be any different, and neither do most Americans apparently. :)

[Clarkie1]

41. I didn't think they gave Bush "license to steal" during the election.

Seriously, there were more articles critical of Bush than Kerry, and the Bush articles tended to be harsher in their criticism.

I think there is some truth at factcheck.org if one keeps an open mind. That's something I always try to do.

I don't see the article as any threat to social security, because the agrument against privatization isn't based on the supposed windfall to corporations. I'm very suspicious of corporations in general, but that doesn't give me reason to dismiss this article.

[marcologico]

42. The problem with the article is that it assumes that Bush would deliver

a plan that mimics the (allegedly) super-efficient Federal Thrift Savings Plan.

But when has BushCo produced anything that wasn't ruinously expensive, badly organized, criminally wasteful and riddled with graft?

[Clarkie1]

43. I agree.

However, factcheck.org is just reporting what Bush SAID; If they started making judgements about he'd actually DO they'd no longer be able to be considered objective by anyone.

What bothered me a lot during the campaign is when Kerry stretched the truth when he didn't need to, or used a flimsy number or argument when he didn't need to. Why make this argument about the windfall to corporations if it's built on shaky ground and not necessary? Why spend valuable energy and time promoting this argument when we could instead just base our arguments on INDISPUTABLE facts like the fact that it will increase the debt, do nothing to make the system solvent, and so on?

When we make an argument that an organization like factcheck.org can refute with "facts" we weaken our crediblity. That was something that bothered me a lot during the campaign, frankly. Yes, Bush was outright lying, but Kerry weakened his credibility at times when he didn't have to in order to make his point or win his case. The fact that Bush was outright lying and being called on it made it even more frustrating. What if after one of those debates organizations like factcheck.org found NO Kerry mistatements, only Bush mistatements?

What a story that would have been.

And I think Kerry probably would have won more than just the debates.

[marcologico]

45. Okay. But two points:

1. Bush DIDN'T say it -- in fact, nobody said it. The claim is based on a "background briefing given to White House reporters" by an unidentified "official" who actually only said that "the investment options that individuals would have would be somewhat similar to the Thrift Savings Plan."

And yet FactCheck is calling the Louisiana ad a "False Attack" and claiming that "brokers netted only 16 cents in fees to manage a $10,000 retirement account" under the system Bush is "modeling" his SS plan on. But the fact is that Bush doesn't even have an SS plan. You could call this a very flimsy chain of assumptions or you could call it an outright lie.

2. What are these Kerry "misstatements" you're referring to?

[sendero]

47. Dammit marco...

... you've gone and posted something I agree with. Shit!

[marcologico]

50. LOL

just a lucky break I guess!
:shrug:

[Wilms]

27. .

[sandnsea]

28. They SUCK

Anybody who thinks they were fair during this election is a complete stooge and needs to take a closer look at how badly this election was covered in the media. The poster above had it right, they take a Dem issue that can be interpreted differently and slap it up against a bold-faced Bush lie and call it fair fact checking.

[ztn]

32. Sounds like "Fair and Balanced News"???

you know: the "liberal mainstream media".;) trying to look like fair so no one calls them liberal for telling the truth....

[Clarkie1]

39. What's worse...

A lie or something that can be interpreted differently?

I think factcheck.org did a service to Kerry in that it showed an important difference between his campaign and Bush's campaign.

While Kerry's campaign stretched the truth and molded the "facts" to fit it's own political agenda, Bush lied. Repeatedly.

Which is worse?

Frankly, both approaches stink, but such seems to be the nature of our two-party system.

[Wilms]

44. .

[SF Bay Area Dem]

46. Some of their stuff has been interesting...

... I can see the conservatives trying to tkae them over though to present a Faux News style "fair and ballanced" style of news...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

48. Annenberg and Factcheck.org are Rwingnut orgs & site...GARBAGE

[PC12]

49. They took Bush's pro-privitazation side!

"Factcheck = Operation Mockingbird"!?!

:shrug:

I don't trust them.

[Wilms]

51. kick n/t