factcheck.org slams moveon.org's ad

[tobius]

Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million?

A TV ad from an anti-Bush group says so. But it's based on a study that actually says something different.<snip>
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=151
The 8-million figure comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank whose board of directors includes the heads of several major labor unions. EPI has devoted an entire web page  to defending its calculations.

Even EPI concedes that many low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible for overtime benefits, up from the present level of $155, a figure that hasn't been changed since 1975.  In its study , published in June 2003, EPI said that change "is sorely needed." <snip>
The proposal would change the rules for determining when white-collar workers can be classified by their employers as exempt from overtime pay for extra hours. The proposed rule changes are extensive, covering executive employees who can hire and fire others, administrative employees in a "position of responsibility", so-called "Learned Professional Employees" who have "knowledge of an advanced type," creative professionals, outside sales workers and certain computer workers such as systems analysts or software engineers. (None of these groups look very much like the blue-collar factory hand in the Moveon.org ad, by the way.)

Which is closer to the truth, EPI's 8-million figure or the Labor Department's 644,000? In fact there are no solid figures on how many workers qualify for overtime now, so all estimates involve more than the usual amount of educated guesswork. But the Moveon.org ad has no basis at all for suggesting that 8 million could actually lose pay -- not even EPI's figures support that.

The ad might truthfully have said, "George Bush wants to change overtime rules for millions of workers and some of them might lose pay." That would soften the ad's impact, but it would have the virtue of being factually correct.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

1. perhaps they meant to call it FATCHECK.org instead of factcheck.org???

[DaveSZ]

2. It's a non-partisan site

I like factcheck.org.

On misleader.org, a wing of MoveOn, I've found a partially untruthful article as well.

Would you rather just blindly believe all the self-serving partisan tripe fed to you, or would you rather know the truth in regards to both sides and make the best decision accordingly?

I’m convinced that a rock could better govern than GWB, so I’ll still support Kerry even though I know since he’s a politician, he’s also pulled his share of dirty tricks.

[tobius]

3. My understanding is that factcheck.org has a strong rep for

telling it like it is. I am a partisan but hate untruthful partisanship.

[thebigidea]

5. Moveon.org is self-serving partisan tripe?

Uh, you do want to beat Bush, yes?

They're doing a great job

[Cocoa]

9. they say they're non partisan

but so far they suck. They dropped the ball big time on AWOL, they wrote this terrible piece downplaying it, and several rightwing publications used that piece to defend Bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Non-partisan just means not affiliated with a party.

factcheck's 'facts' always seem to favor the right.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

6. bwhahahahah

ah, priceless.

Good job!

[markus]

7. Good Guys Finish Last

The Republican right declared a non-violent civil war to eliminate our kind from public discourse.

We have to take the fight to the enemy, on their own terms. It's all they understand.

If you want to pussy foot around about the video images on the add being misleading, then we are pretty much f---ed and should start thinking about Bush's second term.

[tobius]

8. the video images are fine

credibility is the issue. There are enough labor issues with real statistics to back them up rather than waste $$$ doing harm with independents and other swing voters in November.

[Cocoa]

10. I question FactCheck's methods

how do they decide which "facts" to "check?"

I sent them this hypothetical question: suppose in this campaign, that Bush tells ten zillion more lies than Kerry does, and that Bush's lies are huge, while Kerry's lies are minor. Will FactCheck weigh its coverage of Bush's lies accordingly, or in the interest of "balance" will it cover Bush and Kerry equally, giving the misleading impression that the two candidates are equally dishonest, when in reality Bush is the biggest fucking liar anyone has ever seen?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. Factcheck.org is an Annenberg Front.

Annenberg was an infamous right winger. The Annenberg School has
published many reports that have been anti-progressive.

This report is Pure BS!

[tobius]

13. It's BS because the facts are wrong?

or BS because you don't like the conclusions?



Disillusion comes only to the illusioned. One cannot be disillusioned of what one never put faith in.-Dorothy Thompson

[w4rma]

14. It's BS because they cherry pick their sources.

Like using Bush's own "studies"/propaganda to defend Bush.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

15. Thank You w4rma. Tobius's assault on me was uncalled for.

Annenberg chooses which "facts" they want to look at.

[tobius]

19. Sorry if it came across as an assault, that was not my intention. nt

[tobius]

16. look, it's understandable that criticism evokes reflexive defense.

But, why should anyone or any group escape scrutiny because their "intentions are good"? Defending misleading information from anywhere will undermine trust and integrity.
Are there any studies out there that sustain the assertions in the ad?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Why put up a strawman argument?

No one in this thread has said or implied that: 'anyone or any group escape scrutiny because their "intentions are good" '


It is meaningless for you to counter an argument that no one is advancing. Why not address the actual point being made: that factcheck is biased in which facts it chooses to check?

[tobius]

18. It's interesting that factcheck.org gets attacked because they point out

the misleading staements by moveon.org. Where is the defense of moveons #'s? Factcheck has been cited by many sources including here at DU as a great resource. No credible organization supports your point, other than factcheck is biased towards using verifiable facts and sources. The hypocrisy is palpable by those who only defend when it is in their own interest.
The list of people, web sites and organizations who acclaim the work of factcheck.org is extensive, this is just a taste.


FactCheck.org
FactCheck.org has a great piece on what Bush conveniently forgot to mention in his State Of The Dictatorship speech last week: http://www.liberaltimes.com/mt/archives/000086.html

This is a must read for anyone who still has doubts about General Clark's position on the war in Iraq. http://blog.forclark.com/story/2004/2/1/174712/7487

The NewsHour on PBS uses them.
Campaign Ad Watch: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/sr_media.html


Moyers: ...He left us with much wisdom about life and many witticisms about politics. It was Patient Moynihan who famously said, quote, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts." http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript303_full.html

Well, there's a new Web site with that distinction as its mandate: FactCheck.org. That's the logo right there. You can link to it through NOW's site on pbs.org. Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. And its aim is to hold politicians accountable for dubious claims and outright falsehoods. Brooks Jackson runs it.

He's a journalistic original. Utterly unpartisan and utterly unexcitable except by plain and simple fact. In a long career stretching from the Associated Press and the WALL STREET JOURNAL to CNN. And in his book HONEST GRAFT: HOW SPECIAL INTERESTS BUY INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON, Brooks Jackson kept breaking new ground in reporting. He's doing it again, this time on the Internet. Welcome to NOW.<snip>


....you took a look at a very tough ad that the Republicans were running implying that Democrats were something close to traitors. And you cried foul. Here's that ad.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. But why counter an argument no one is making?

You said: But, why should anyone or any group escape scrutiny because their "intentions are good"?

Yet no one said that.


Why not actually respond to the comments being made in the thread?

[mikehiggins]

20. There's another interesting statement in FactCheck's report

Discussing the EPI study, FactCheck mentions this little fact:

"The ad misquotes the study, however. What the study actually says is that an estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would actually lose pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure is inflated by many part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even though they now have the right to it."

Now, it may be hard for some to think that employers will not pay overtime that they are not legally required to pay. Heaven's forfend! And those part-time workers who ARE legally entitled to overtime pay but DON'T get it are somehow not appropriately included in that 8 million figure.

I guess it depends on where you are sitting, right?

If you think the bosses will take every opportunity available to them to screw the workers out of every penny they can, then the 8 million figure is likely to prove correct. If you think the world is full of fuzzy bunnies and cute little squirrels and nobody would ever screw their employees out of a penny, then I guess you'd go with Bush's labor department (and FactCheck) on this one.

Not that there was anything odd, in that world view, for the Labor Department to be explaining to employers how best to avoid paying overtime. That's just being good public servants, right?

It makes me wonder, Tobius, if you have ever actually held a job in an unprotected environment, like a factory floor, or somewhere where knowing how to say "fries with that" is a job requirement.

The MoveOn ad may not be "factually documentable" but it is more than likely the truth. Sometimes, truth doesn't come with documentation, it just speaks for itself.

[annagull]

21. "position of resposibility" or "learned professional employees"

sounds like a gobbledy-gook way of basically letting employers designate anyone they want exempt from overtime pay. This is all subjective, both the numbers from the Labor Dept and EPI are guesses, as the article says. So since there are no facts as to how many will be effected, how does factcheck.org label this as factually incorrect?

[Cocoa]

23. FactCheck answers its emails

Good question.

We decided from day one that we'd follow the facts (and the misstatments
and distortions) wherever they lead. We will not attempt to "balance" an
article critical of Bush with an article critial of Kerry, or vice versa.

Theoretically, if one candidate always got it wrong and the other always
got it right, our articles would reflect that.

--Brooks Jackson

-----Original Message-----
To: [e-mail]
Sent: 3/8/2004 11:50 AM
Subject: FactCheck methods

Dear FactCheck,

I have a question about how your site decides which facts to check,
which is best expressed in this hypothetical question:

Suppose in the course of this campaign, that Bush tells ten zillion more
lies than Kerry does, and that Bush's lies are huge, while Kerry's lies
are minor. Will FactCheck weigh its coverage of Bush's lies accordingly
heavier, or in the interest of "balance" will it cover Bush and Kerry
equally, giving the misleading impression that the two candidates are
equally dishonest, when in reality Bush is the biggest liar anyone has
ever seen, and that Kerry is at worst a conventional politician?

Thank you,