We are the PunditFact fact-checkers. Ask US anything.

First off, I just wanted to say I'm a huge fan of Polifact and was extremely excited when you guys made the announcement last year that you would be adding Punditfact. Keep up the good work!

My question is: What do you believe is the most common reasons incorrect statements are made? Are the speakers trying to deceive us? Is it honest error? Do they not care enough and hope people won't catch them?

It's a mix. I think some people do make honest mistakes. A good example is when politicians and pundits confuse the debt and deficit. They do it all the time. On TV ads it's another matter. We know campaigns attempt to take a shred of truth and distort it in the worst possible way to make their opponents look. We've heard of cases where campaigns don't even care if they're claims are rated "Mostly False," so long as it isn't the dreaded "Pants on Fire." -- Aaron

Don't they have laws against showing blatantly false campaign ads on TV?

Not really. Campaigns can get pressured into taking an ad down, but they're not obligated to, as far as I know. -- Aaron

Do you believe there is a liberal bias in the media? or any sort of bias for that matter?

I don't want to leave you hanging, Paintbrush. This is a big topic and I can't do it full justice but I've thought about it ever since I got into this business. Here's my basic conclusion: With cable and the web, there definitely are more organizations with a clear ideological slant. We still have mainstream media and if we strip away the impossible standard of complete objectivity, what you see is a set of decisions based on consensus values. There is a broad middle in this country and that's where the mainstream media tends to operate. I'd put us in that group, by the way.

What's interesting is when the mainstream values shift a bit on a particular topic. If I think of a good, current example, I'll give it. My brain isn't coughing one up right now.

Hope that helps, at least a little bit.

Jon

Follow up question: Do you believe reality has a liberal bias?

It's a great line but in my nerdy way, I would say that while portrayals of reality are often biased, sooner or later, reality makes itself felt. At which point, the people who were wrong go on to another topic.

Jon

Thanks for doing this AMA. Two part question. First, do you think that your group / organization should be allowed to fact check political debates (like when they come back from commercial the moderator reads a report of the inaccuracies and blatant lies told in the previous segments). Second, what do you think it would take to make this happen?

We'd love to participate directly in debates, but I think the candidates would object. What would be needed to make it happen? A strong TV network that demands that fact-checking be part of a debate... Or if Zuckerberg bought us out for $18 billion or whatever, that might help. -- Aaron

Maybe a scrolling bar on the bottom of the screen, that periodically reads: "cough Bullshit cough"?

Yes, a scrollbar with very discreet cough mostly false cough or flames blazing at the bottom to alert a PANTS ON FIRE just occurred. Lol. / Katie

Long time fan here. Some questions for you:

• What pundit do you think is the most accurate? Most inaccurate?
• What news channel is the most accurate/inaccurate?

Too soon to tell. Our brothers and sisters at PolitiFact do Lie of the Year and we're going to hand out some awards of our own. But we need to have more fact-checks under our belts over many more months before we can do that. We haven't even figured out what the award categories will be. But don't worry; we'll do something and when we do, we'll let you know it's coming.

In the meanwhile, lots of users have worked through our site using the sorting tools and you're free to call 'em as you see 'em.

Jon

I didn't realize you and Polifact were different in that respect? How close are you guys? Do you work in the same building?

We are REAL close. This is Jon and I'm in DC. Next to me is Steve. Behind me is Lou. Becky's here and Angie has her own office. We talk all the time and all of us came out of PolitiFact. The main difference is the people we check. They deal with the elected leaders. We deal with the unelected.

Jon

Where is your office in dc?

We're at Connecticut and L.

Whats the process you guys go through in deciding which statements to fact-check?

good question. We love reader requests because it helps us know we're answering something people are actually wondering about. We did that this week with this: (Pants on Fire!!! http://bit.ly/1bOQ997) That's the goal -- to reflect the news, head off inaccuracies, and to answer relevant questions that voters want to know. We stay busy scanning the TV shows (like, all the shows), radio chatter and various social media websites and memes. We're hoping Reddit users will help us find good things to check. :) / Katie

Is there enough data that it can be objectively said that Fox News is biased towards promoting their own agenda significantly more than other major news outlets? Or can that notion only be considered a subjective view?

One of the funniest comments I ever heard came from a Fox News PR person who challenged my interest in a claim from one of their hosts. "Do you think we politicized the issue," she asked. I didn't engage her at that level but no one who watches Fox or MSNBC is in any doubt about their political leanings.

I have no idea how you would go about measuring any of this. My gut tells me it would be subjective.

Jon

I was thinking with the data collected one could plausibly determine the ratio of nonfactual assertions versus factual assertions.

The problem is we don't fact-check every single assertion. We let a lot of pretty obvious things go because they are just that. / Katie

How do you "fact check" predictions (like when a pundit/politician makes a claim about the effects a policy will have)?

"If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor" being the most notable example.

We stay away from actual predictions, such the Phillies will win the World Series (boy do I hope). But if someone is basing a prediction on a report or some other evidence... we can see if that report or evidence draws the conclusion the speaker does. For instance, the Keystone XL pipeline will create 35 permanent jobs. That's a prediction, but it's based in a government report. So we can assess that claim in the context of the report. -- Aaron

I feel like whenever a CBO report comes up, both sides tear it apart. Is there another source for the most accurate reading of our nation's deficit/debt? Or anything budget related?

You noticed that too, huh? We haven't found reason to not trust CBO. The reports usually have a mix of good news and bad news depending on whose side you're on -- that's just real life. Anyway, when we write about the debt and deficit we consult other voices, sometimes with a point of view, to add more context. That includes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Taxpayers for Common Sense, just to name a couple. / Katie

I love what you folks are doing!

What are some fact-checking/research resources that the general public may be unaware of, that they can use to fact-check various public and media figures?

A lot of times I ask politicians and pundits where they got their info and they simply point to news stories. Here's an example: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/19/lawrence-odonnell/lawrence-odonnell-says-chris-christie-steered-6-mi/ Other times, they're bringing up talking points that suit them from nonpartisan sources, like the Congressional Budget Office or the State Department's Keystone pipeline reports. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/13/ralph-reed/ralph-reed-says-alternatives-keystone-pipeline-are/ Plus, we spend a good deal of time with each fact-check listing each and every source we consulted. So it's no secret where we're getting our info. / Katie

Thanks! That's really helpful. It's also important for your detractors to know that you link-back to your sources because I hear a lot of people knock fact-checkers on the basis that they "Have biases of their own." You're at least listing your sources so people can see where you're getting your info. Basically, one of the most important things you do, is to provide a trail from the comments pundits make, leading back to the origins of their opinion. This fills in important gaps in the political narrative.

BTW- Thanks for coming to our class last night. You rocked the house!

Hey, no problem. Thank YOU for coming to our A-M-A. (Don't tell anyone what I called it in class. They will take my Reddit card or something.) / Katie

I don't know about what the public generally knows but the ones I find myself using over and over include: BLS, Census, Energy Information Administration, EPS databases, Congressional Research Service (type CRS and your topic. They are amazing.), and of course, CBO. Treasury can also be good and for business, SEC filings.

In general, if you can think of who might have the hard data, that's the place to go.

Jon

How do you guys access CRS? It's supposed to be only members of congress and their staffs.

The Foundation of American Scientists post copies of a lot of CRS stuff. That's where I've found it on Google searches. I think Angie has also found reports on something called, I think, Open CRS. But for me, FAS has done the trick.

I'd say that a little Google digging generally gets people a lot of the way. Always track back sources, and try to find primary sources when available. Also use us! And our colleagues factcheck.org, and the Washington Post Fact-Checker. -- Aaron

are there ever conflicts when deciding what the final ruling will be? i.e. 2 people versus say false 3 people say pants on fire?

There's definitely debate. The rating for every fact-check is ultimately decided by a three-member jury. We call it the "Star Chamber." They read the story and decide the ruling (The writer gets to make a recommendation). Sometimes the jury will ask for more research or additional information. On particularly difficult fact-checks, we'll often bring in additional jury members... We call that the "Super Chamber." We don't publish until we all feel comfortable based on the information we have at hand. -- Aaron

P.S. I really wish our owners -- the Tampa Bay Times -- would buy us cloaks to wear while we decide the rulings.

Can we get lightsabers too or no? / Katie

Why havent you guys been guests on Face The Nation?

We'd love to be guests on Face the Nation or any news show! Right now our regular TV time is more local, as we're based in St. Petersburg, Fla. / Katie

Did your organization fact check Obama's "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" claim at the time he was saying it?

Yes we did. I can dig up the link but for the moment, let me say that we rated that Half True because while the majority of people with employer-based plans would be unaffected, we knew that a lot of people in the individual market would be caught short. We did not change that rating.

Jon

whats it like to work for punditfact not everyone gets the chance to do something like this? whats a typical day look like?

There are only three of us, and we feel very lucky to do this. We work Sunday through Thursday, start around 9, finish after 6. We fact-check the Sunday political news shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, Fox News Sunday, State of the Union) on a daily deadline. On the other days, our editor (Aaron) usually has an idea of what he wants us to check out based on what reader emails we're getting or what he thought was interesting on TV or radio or whatever. We try to get in touch with the person who made the claim to see what supporting information they have for it, and then we're off the to races, exploring websites for primary reports and data (not like the deep internet on House of Cards) and we start interviewing sources. We try to finish our work by the end of the day, so there is time for three editors to decide on a final rating for each claim. Sometimes we need more time to draw a firm conclusion. Thanks for asking! / Katie

How much longer until Politifact, or Punditfact, moderates a Presidential Debate?

Probably a long time -- sadly. Candidates, for some reason, don't like being told that something they said is inaccurate. -- Aaron

What's the longest a certain fact has taken to check?

I once checked a claim about Marco Rubio that 57 of his 100 ideas for Florida became law. That probably took 6 weeks to track down all the laws, etc. Turned out to be Half True, I think. Most fact checks can be handled in a day or two ... Aaron

Wow, Aaron. You've got me way beat!

Jon

We never try to rush but at the same time, we know we need to keep producing new material. That's why a key step in our process is to focus the claim we are checking so we can get it done in a reasonable amount of time. I remember spending over a week during the 2012 presidential campaign on an attack on Romney. I think it had to do with whether when he was at Bain that he moved jobs overseas. It was pretty knotty stuff.

Jon

A week is usually the max. I am not an expert in all things, so there's sometimes a big learning curve to get up to speed on what the debate even is. I went through this reporting on Florida's pension fund and redistricting battles, for example. And, sorry, I'm too embarrassed to tell you how long my very first fact-check took to turn around (before I was close to being on staff). It was about interior designers, who can be very touchy about regulation. / Katie

What's the most ridiculous statement you've ever fact-checked and found true?

Katie here. You can browse all of the statements we've rated True here (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/rulings/true/). I don't have a ridiculously true statement in my head right now, but this one was kind of surprising and interesting (and true) recently: "Bob Schieffer says Iran President Hassan Rouhani has more cabinet members with American Ph.D.s than Obama" http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/16/bob-schieffer/bob-schieffer-says-iran-president-hassan-rouhani-h/

I actually love True statements because I think it's just as important to verify when something is accurate as it is to show something to be false. We recently fact-checked claims ahead of the Super Bowl. This one was fun -- http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/31/roger-goodell/nfls-goodell-extra-point-almost-automatic/ -- and had a .gif. -- Aaron

Thanks for all your hard work! What subjects would you say are lied about the most?

Health care. No doubt. And on all sides -- Aaron

Thanks for answering my question. What aspect of healthcare do they seem to get wrong most often?

We spend a lot of time with the Affordable Care Act, of course, and have done so since it first started getting batted around. The health care law is really long and confusing and has effects in so many places, providing us plenty of fodder to fact-check. Here's PolitiFact's health care page, if you're curious: http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/

What pundit has most surprised you? Who did you expect to be especially honest or dishonest before discovering the reverse upon checking the facts?

We all make mistakes from time to time (I hope no one is checking my grammar here). So we're never really surprised that people say something that is wrong, at least every once in a while... The thing about pundits that most surprises me is that how much they talk without actually making a factual claim! --Aaron

What do you think is the most repeated lie you've come across? Why do you think it's so prevalent?

I confess, my mind is sort of blur when I look back over all the checks we've done, whether on PolitiFact or PunditFact. But I've got to say that Obamcare has had a lot of incorrect things said about it -- from both sides. Another biggy are the twins -- deficit and debt. I guess I'd say that whatever is high on the news curve gets the most attention and that's fertile ground for misstatements.

Jon

Do you think that time is linear or cyclical?

I read "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". (sp?) Not that anyone really knows but I'm sort of intrigued with the idea that the universe, and thus time, expands and contracts. So by that, time is cyclical. Although not repeating.

This is definitely not a checkable claim!

Jon

I tweeted this question. A user replied: "its neither, there is no bipolarity" So there you go, maybe? / Katie

What do you think of the current state of the news and media in this country?

I heard a quote a while back, It was during the 2012 election. It was something to the effect of "The job of a fact checker is a new one, fact checking used to be a part of journalism".

A couple of quick thoughts: 1. The number of reporters has shrunk enormously. With fewer hands and deadlines that come ever sooner, it's more difficult to verify claims of fact. 2. I've heard reporters say that they look on us -- and that included Factcheck.org and the Washington Post Factchecker -- as a resource. In a way, I think that as the media landscape has changed, this is a specialized task that has been taken up by a few shops. And by the way, my list is not complete. 3. Factchecking is labor intensive. That's why we opened /r/PunditFact to see if we can nurture a group of people who are more up on the discipline of factchecking.

Jon

The state of news and media? Yikes, what a question. Our role is certainly unique, but we essentially think of ourselves as truth-seeking reporters and writers, not unlike our colleagues with other job titles. Sometimes, I have to explain that I'm not a traditional 'fact-checker,' like at a magazine, who doesn't write stories. Good reporters still put an emphasis on fact-checking their stories. Some are more emboldened now in this "fact-checking age" to call out false information in their blog posts. And why not? / Katie

Your 2012 award went to a statement that was in a gray area and that iirc has turned out true. The award did not go to a statement made by a Senator that one of the presidential candidates had not paid income taxes, which was an utter lie. Why choose a 'gray' statement on a narrow issue, over a black-and-white statement?

I wasn't on staff at the time but I can say that in general the Lie of the Year is selected based on several factors, among them, the significance of the claim, not the degree of inaccuracy. For example, this year Obama got it for "If you like your plan you can keep it." We rated that half true and stuck with that rating because for the great majority of Americans it was true. But it was still Lie of the Year because it was a very big deal. In case it's useful, here's an explaination for the Romney pick in 2012 Jon

Thanks so much for doing this AMA. I love the work you do and I think it raises some fascinating questions about how journalism has changed.

Question 1: Doesn't fact-checking take journalists out of the spectator stands and move them onto the playing field as referees? This seems to be a big (and pretty unnoticed) change from traditional journalism.

Question 2: How do you distinguish between the forest and the trees? For example, say some pundit or politician uses a wacky and innacurate analogy, but the broader point she is trying to make is spot-on. How do you balance the specific details of a statement with the broader message the speaker intents to make?

My interpretation of "traditional journalism" is a bit different. I think it's our job to give you the truth. Plain and simple. If we know someone is lying or saying something that is inaccurate, I think it's the responsibility of a journalist to make that clear. We're more than stenographers. -- Aaron (good question)

You absolutely are more than stenographers. I think holding people with power accountable is incredibly important. To me, fact-checking just seems so much more active than previous trends in journalism. This isn't Edward R. Murrow and George McCarthy -- this is day in, day out examination of the statements of people in public life. Seems like a huge change!

I really like the way you put that. Thanks! / Katie

Are there any consequences for pundits that consistently make claims that are untrue?

Hard to say. The real consequence could be a loss of trust among their audience or bosses, but some pundits on the left and right have really loyal followings that don't care if we rate a statement False or Pants on Fire, so I don't really know. Jon mentioned ^{^} that we're thinking of handing out our own awards later this year for flagrant fabricating, but we haven't hammered out the details. Suggestions welcome. / Katie

Biggest Single Lie?

Repeat Offender Award?

Worst Show for Accuracy?

Most Inaccurate News Department?

Those are some starting points... haha. We don't want it to be confused with PolitiFact's awesome "Lie of the Year." / Katie

How do you guys decide what to fact-check related to political objectivity? It seems to me there must be dozens of statements daily from the right and the left -- and they all have an agenda. Are you looking for glaring "trues" and "falses", or do you try to do 50/50 from a political agenda standpoint?

In a polarized world, we aim to give everyone relatively equal attention. We know there's nothing scientific in our approach. We look to check claims that seem especially relevant at the moment, but sometimes we go for a statement just because it's interesting.

We definitely are not looking for glaring Trues or Falses. We talk about our ratings a lot and believe me, sometimes Half True, or Mostly True/False, is the best reflection of the gray zone of accuracy.

Let me know if that sparks a follow-up.

Jon

Would you mind listing a couple of news sources/outlets for the Left and Right that are generally considered sane and not full of blatantly false/misleading statements? I appreciate getting both parties' views, but it's hard to sift through tons of nonsense to get to the root of a lot of issues.

That's a tough one because the American media is built around objectivity for the most part (as opposed to Europe where the paper's leanings are more clear). In general, and this is me just speaking for me, I tend to trust things that are printed and delivered (magazines and newspapers) a little more than everything else. If you take the time to write it down -- my thought is you're more likely to try to get it right. -- Aaron

Does that extend to online versions of newspapers and magazines? Time, Washington Post, etc.

And thanks for your response!

To build off of Jon, we do consult those big names (love the Post's Wonkblog), but they have to be careful with their newer, shorter blogging platforms, too. They're trying to be first and quickly digest things that are complicated, just like we are. It ain't easy. / Katie

True or false: the major players in the US government, including Obama, are actually lizard men who plan on enslaving the human race.

Excellent question! So you're saying that the show House of Cards is just a smokescreen, while the movie Men In Black is a much more accurate depiction of how things work. I'm glad the American public is finally waking up to this obvious fact!

So you'd suggest we check out that Berlitz course in parseltongue?

Jon

I've always wondered: Who chooses your pictures for you? Chris Stirewalt, for example, looks constipated.

We pick the photos, and we try to be middle of the road nice. But we have to watch out for copyright laws and such, so finding images can be a trick some time. My favorite picture of the moment -- Curtis Martin, http://www.politifact.com/personalities/curtis-martin/ --- Aaron

How would you characterize your own personal beliefs, and what steps do you take to ensure that these beliefs don't influence your fact checking?

I'm not registered with a political party, but it's unavoidable that I still have my own thoughts about the issues of the day. I keep them in check by consulting all sides of the spectrum on particular issues as deadline permits. You've gotta be open-minded as a reporter. Sometimes I challenge myself and ask "Where's the hole in my story that someone who doesn't like us could exploit?" Then, I fill it! / Katie

I know what you're asking and the answer is complicated. I believe the world is complicated. I care about people who face tough times. I'm skeptical about everyone. I believe we can get a glimmer of a relatively accurate view of reality if we spend enough time with reliable information.

I hope those beliefs influence my work. But the most important aspect of journalism is that it is a group activity. I count on my editors and colleagues to help me see angles of a situation that I might have overlooked. Lots of people don't realize how important that is in journalism.

Jon

Have you fact checked the claim made by democrats that "red states receive more federal money per capita than blue states"? I never understand how that could be true considering the huge Medicaid payments to people in NY state and unemployment payments to those in California.

Now this is a bummer. A good data source to resolve this has been discontinued. I don't see immediately that we've checked this claim.

Do us a favor and if you catch a pundit, not a politician, saying it, send us the link, the date/time, program or outlet -- whatever it takes for us to see the original statement for ourselves.

BTW, my first thought would be to fold in defense dollars. They make a huge difference, although I don't know how it all nets out.

Jon

I asked Louis Jacobson and he did a check on this in 2012. Lou did say the data was from 2005, but you can check it out. I would love to do an update with more current info if it exists. So keep your eyes and ears open for a pundit making the claim. Thanks. Jon

thanks for the follow up, Jon. Your link sites a report by the "tax foundation". There is no link to that report or other sources of info. Could you post where the source data is found?

I think I've lost the thread here. Can you send me the URL of the page with the reference to the tax foundation?

I think the "taxes paid" number cannot be reliably counted by state. Billionaires pay the majority of the income taxes in the US, correct? Warren Buffet alone might pay $1 Billion or more every year. Does that mean Nebraska will be $1 Billion in the plus column in terms of taxes paid to the feds? What about Washington state with its Microsoft billionaires? Or California with Apple, Facebook and Google?

If we were sifting through the data on specific claim from a pundit, I'd drill into this. Much as I'd like to, I have to save my time for fact-checks that are in play. When you find a pundit that has said this, give us enough info, like a URL, so we can verify that the person said it. If we decide to give it the full treatment, we'll vet all the info. BTW, sometimes we don't pursue perfectly good claims due to what else is happening at the time. We're a newsroom and we need to pay some attention to the news curve. Just noting that.