I'd criticize, but that just seems so in line with their philosophy.

butt hurt city

How surprising, more ignorance and displacement of fact in favor of "balance."

Strangely enough, the rest of the messages said also said ``Thank you, Politifact,''' but they continued, ``for keeping us infromed.'''

Who farking cares. Fiddle while Rome burns or throw gas on it, either way, its going down.

Huh. It looks like Fark fixed the apostrophe-eating bug.

hinten: The problem is not with the particular lie they chose, the problem is with having a Lie of the Year contest in the first place. Picking one lie over another and qualifying it as the 'winner' is a hazardous process and by its nature a subjective exercise. It goes against everything that Politifact claims to stand for and, as a result, it represents everything that every other MSM outlet stands for.

Person of the Year
Lie of the Year
Letterman's Top Ten List
etc.

It wouldn't matter in a normal world, but in an Ed Bernays fanstasy shiat hole it matters because it relieves the utter farkwits of a concern about bias. But honestly, who cares? This war of ideas is lost, now comes the war of stark reality and people are going to suffer.

Since Politifact went against my personal political leanings, I am going to exclaim the downfall of this journalistic organization ignoring all previous uses of it to bolster my political arguments while defending their impeccable journalistic credentials.

/"You have LOST a customerl. I have always respected and gone to PolitiFact for the truth, but after your selection, NO MORE! YOU GUYS ARE TOAST AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED!
//Weapons-grade butthurt there.

Well 50% of those they publish have to be positive, in order to be balanced.

I think the "Lie of the Year" should go to Politifact for the implicit claim that both sides are equal in their levels of BS.

Heh, the emails that criticized the decision include a number of respected political commentators and journalists, while the ones in favor of it are almost entirely random right-wing nobodies, happy just because someone said something bad about the democrats.

You'd think PolitiFact would learn something from that, but I guess they're too busy circle-jerking over how "unbiased" they are.

jake_lex: But if they didn't put themselves in that position by having this stupid "award" anyway, there would have been no issue.

bottom line they are trying to make moolah, that kind of gimmicky shiat makes it.

So far the only defense I've read of PolitiFact, other than regurgitating their own strained logic, goes something like "HAHAHA one of your own turns on you libtards."

Sounds pretty fair and balanced to me. Congratulations PolitiFact. Bring in the blondes!

soy_bomb: Since Politifact went against my personal political leanings, I am going to exclaim the downfall of this journalistic organization ignoring all previous uses of it to bolster my political arguments while defending their impeccable journalistic credentials.

/"You have LOST a customerl. I have always respected and gone to PolitiFact for the truth, but after your selection, NO MORE! YOU GUYS ARE TOAST AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED!
//Weapons-grade butthurt there.

Wait, wait, wait...customer?

This dolt was actually buying things from Politifact?

Wyalt Derp: Well 50% of those they publish have to be positive, in order to be balanced.

Exactly! That's why I buy lottery tickets. I'd be stupid not to! I have 1 in 2 chance of winning! Either 1) I win or 2) I don't. just like flipping a coin. Fair and balanced.

When you're at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

They must not know that one at Politifact.

soy_bomb: Since Politifact went against my personal political leanings, I am going to exclaim the downfall of this journalistic organization ignoring all previous uses of it to bolster my political arguments while defending their impeccable journalistic credentials.

.

Bravo! Well done.

Biological Ali:

Person of the Year
Lie of the Year
Letterman's Top Ten List
etc.

The real problem here is the inconsistent and/or poorly explained criteria they seem to be using for making some of these calls.

The criteria is the biggest lie of the year. Duh. Did you expect some mathematical formula explaining it? Don't be so butt hurt.
Do you whine that Letterman didn't explain his criteria for the ranking of the Top Ten?

So how does Paul Ryan's plan not privatize Medicare for those who are currently under 55 like my self?

Biological Ali: tenpoundsofcheese: The criteria is the biggest lie of the year. Duh. Did you expect some mathematical formula explaining it? Don't be so butt hurt.
Do you whine that Letterman didn't explain his criteria for the ranking of the Top Ten?

Are you under the impression that Politifact is running an entertainment business?


They are all running a business. They slant is their opinions no different really that some people like Letterman and Stewart have a comic slant for their business.

This whole debate turns Juliet's famous question on its head: what's in a name; doth that which we do not call a rose, smell sweet once it is called one? Pluck its petals and burn the stem; so long as I yet call it a rose, may I not woo a woman with the ashes?

And from there you get into all sorts of deep and heady philosophical waters about the nature of being and whether symbols describe reality or confine it and people like Plato and Chomsky start butting into the conversation...

Point is, in a year when you had such gems as "not intended to be a factual statement" (my personal favorite) the only reason to rush into a multi-millenial philosophical quagmire (giggidy) is the overwhelming compulsion to appear impartial at the expense of being actually objective.

True objectivity has to include an openness to the idea that one side may in fact be more dishonest than the other. And if it's true that last year reality had a liberal bias, objectivity requires that you not refrain from saying so for fear of the consequences.

The death of journalism has been brought about not by the internet or declining circulation, but by lazily equating objectivity with just making sure to transcribe both sides' soundbites. Sites like PolitiFact offered hope that the internet could provide a revolutionary opportunity for citizens to spot-check the claims of those who would be their leaders.

This is why I'm so disappointed to find PolitiFact fetishizing "balance" over reality, becoming just another syncophantic face in the media crowd that surrounds and clothes the Naked Emporer of American politics...

Regardless of what you think of their decisions, when was the last time you saw a politician acknowledge their unpopular decision and publish the letters of their detractors?

This is really how politics ought to be done- they're not pandering or submitting to popular disapproval, they're simply saying that a lot of people disagree with them, giving them a voice, and that's OK. They're not trying to control anyone's narrative, they're trying to be as transparent as possible.

Don't forget the thousands of tweets...

badhatharry: Mrtraveler01: So how does Paul Ryan's plan not privatize Medicare for those who are currently under 55 like my self?

He's not ending Medicare. He's saving Medicare.

And that's the crux of it. I hate Ryan's plan, but the statement "The Ryan plan would end Medicare" is untrue. It would fundamentally alter it in a terrible way(or, as Politifact pointed out, "The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it"), but it still exists. No matter how you cut it the claim that it will end Medicare is false, it's a matter of being precise with your words.

badhatharry: I guess I'll biatch a little. The fark word filter has gone from amusing to Orwellian.

It's always been a biatchallenging to avoid the filter.

hillbillypharmacist: jso2897: i18.photobucket.com

My first thought was: "did olly ever really say that?"

Politifact is the Precious Roy of websites.

cendojr: badhatharry: Mrtraveler01: So how does Paul Ryan's plan not privatize Medicare for those who are currently under 55 like my self?

He's not ending Medicare. He's saving Medicare.

And that's the crux of it. I hate Ryan's plan, but the statement "The Ryan plan would end Medicare" is untrue. It would fundamentally alter it in a terrible way(or, as Politifact pointed out, "The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it"), but it still exists. No matter how you cut it the claim that it will end Medicare is false, it's a matter of being precise with your words.

I think this is why the choosing the lie infuriates so many people. Yes, everyone admits the name is the same.

But to say the two different programs, one for people older than 55 and one for people younger, are both still "Medicare" is a joke. One is a single payer healthcare system many civilized countries provide.

The other is an insurance voucher program where us young folk will continue paying a larger and larger percentage for.

But wait! You might say. It's not a voucher program! Because the government directly pays the choice insurance companies. It's privatized health insurance with more government restrictions than Obama's insurance exchange.

Rodeodoc: What's really amusing about this kerfuffle is that when Politifact runs an article that points out where a Republican has lied, their mailbag is full of left wing rants about the evils of George Bush and Republicans in general, and hails Politifact as been the purveyor of truth in the media. Then when things don't go the Democrats way, it's like Politifact spit of the grave of the baby Jeebus. Republicans might be upfront assholes, but no one is more two faced than a Democrat.

/all politicians are liars

They call out Democrats all the time, even Rachel Maddow doesn't get by. This has never been a problem until they picked a half-truth at worse and subjected it to semantic scrutiny. This was unacceptable. Get it yet?

badhatharry: Liberals are some whiny biatches. Politifact might change it just to get them to quit biatchin.

Liberals need to do something to combat the decades of whining of media bias by conservatives. Today the media treats conservatives with kids gloves for fear of these accusations. Why shouldn't the left emulate their success?

Dibs on band name "Semantic Scrutiny".

/called it

Philip J. Fry: But to say the two different programs, one for people older than 55 and one for people younger, are both still "Medicare" is a joke. One is a single payer healthcare system many civilized countries provide.

The other is an insurance voucher program where us young folk will continue paying a larger and larger percentage for.

Yup. Politifact basically said that the Republicans weren't trying to end Medicare because they had an alternate program to serve healthcare for those same people. The Democrats said the Republicans were trying to end Medicare because to them it's very important that it stays a socialized single-payer institution.

You think Politifact might have acknowledged this, given that none too long ago we had a months long debate about "socialized health care". I'm of the opinion that if you privatize Medicare or you privatize Social Security then they're no longer Medicare or Social Security.

cendojr: badhatharry: Mrtraveler01: So how does Paul Ryan's plan not privatize Medicare for those who are currently under 55 like my self?

He's not ending Medicare. He's saving Medicare.

And that's the crux of it. I hate Ryan's plan, but the statement "The Ryan plan would end Medicare" is untrue. It would fundamentally alter it in a terrible way(or, as Politifact pointed out, "The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it"), but it still exists. No matter how you cut it the claim that it will end Medicare is false, it's a matter of being precise with your words.


"The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it" is what PoltiFact rated as pants on fire. That's not what they "pointed out," it's what they took issue with.

badhatharry: This is the flip side to the Republicans death panels lie last year. All hyperbolic political rhetoric are "lies".

Trolling is stupid.

badhatharry: This is the flip side to the Republicans death panels lie last year. All hyperbolic political rhetoric are "lies".

There was never anything even remotely resembling a death panel ever considered in the HCR process.

Paul Ryan's plan would undoubtedly change drastically change the very core of the Medicare program.

/EXACTLY THE SAME!!!

I was told there would be no math.