Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?

Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."

What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.

Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.

An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."

CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."

dbackjon wrote:The plant BEGAN it's shutdown in December 2008. It was on a wind-down phase by the time Obama was in office


Baldy FAIL again. Ryan mislead and lied his whole speech, but since the campaign of Rmoney-Ryan is nothing but lies, to be expected.

dbackjon wrote:The plant BEGAN it's shutdown in December 2008. It was on a wind-down phase by the time Obama was in office


Baldy FAIL again. Ryan mislead and lied his whole speech, but since the campaign of Rmoney-Ryan is nothing but lies, to be expected.

dbackjon wrote:The plant BEGAN it's shutdown in December 2008. It was on a wind-down phase by the time Obama was in office


Baldy FAIL again. Ryan mislead and lied his whole speech, but since the campaign of Rmoney-Ryan is nothing but lies, to be expected.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The plant BEGAN it's shutdown in December 2008. It was on a wind-down phase by the time Obama was in office


Baldy FAIL again. Ryan mislead and lied his whole speech, but since the campaign of Rmoney-Ryan is nothing but lies, to be expected.

Jeezzzus Christ, jon, Ryan never said Obama was the cause of the plant closing down. All he said was that Obama promised to keep it open and didn't. Imagine that, another Obama lie.

It seems that you will do and say anything to defend him no matter how egregious the lie is.
Who knew you were into twinks so much.

GannonFan wrote:Not taking sides on any particular argument, but the thread is right in that the "Fact Checkers" are far from the non-partisan slant that they try to profess they are. With so many different "fact checker" groups out there now, there's bound to be incentive to one up another group or to tailor the fact checking to a particular audience. Just like the larger media, there's plenty of slant, both ways, to the Fact Checkers. We've gotten very loose on the definition of "facts" anymore.

BlueHen86 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Not taking sides on any particular argument, but the thread is right in that the "Fact Checkers" are far from the non-partisan slant that they try to profess they are. With so many different "fact checker" groups out there now, there's bound to be incentive to one up another group or to tailor the fact checking to a particular audience. Just like the larger media, there's plenty of slant, both ways, to the Fact Checkers. We've gotten very loose on the definition of "facts" anymore.

Good post.

Another thing is that everything is "spin" these days. A statement doesn't have to be completely true, just true enough that the speakers' supporters can spin it.

It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign -- that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep's parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.

People often say that politicians don’t pay a price for deception, but this time was different: A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.

Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake, said on Tuesday it had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group (601238.SS).

Fiat is trying to offset a slump in European sales by targeting fast growing markets in Asia and Latin America. The Italian firm and Chrysler lag far behind other foreign carmakers in China, where consumers bought 19.3 million cars last year.

"We expect production of around 100,000 Jeeps per year which is expandable to 200,000," Marchionne, who is also CEO of Chrysler, said on the sidelines of a conference, adding production could start in 18 months.

Not taking sides on any particular argument, but the thread is right in that the "Fact Checkers" are far from the non-partisan slant that they try to profess they are.

Ryan mislead and lied his whole speech, but since the campaign of Rmoney-Ryan is nothing but lies, to be expected.

Baldy wrote:Bump

December 12, 2012

Lie of the Year: the Romney campaign's ad on Jeeps made in China

It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign -- that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep's parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.

People often say that politicians don’t pay a price for deception, but this time was different: A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.

January 17, 2013

Fiat sees at least 100,000 Jeeps made in China in 2014

Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake, said on Tuesday it had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group (601238.SS).

Fiat is trying to offset a slump in European sales by targeting fast growing markets in Asia and Latin America. The Italian firm and Chrysler lag far behind other foreign carmakers in China, where consumers bought 19.3 million cars last year.

"We expect production of around 100,000 Jeeps per year which is expandable to 200,000," Marchionne, who is also CEO of Chrysler, said on the sidelines of a conference, adding production could start in 18 months.

"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," he said, to boos from the audience. "I will fight for every good job in America. I’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if it’s fair, America will win."

Skjellyfetti wrote: Um, the "lie" or untruth spoken by Romney wasn't that Jeep was going to be producing cars in China... it was that Jeep was "MOVING ALL PRODUCTION TO CHINA."

PolitiFact has selected Romney's claim that Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs as the 2012 Lie of the Year.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The link you provided (that you assuredly got from Drudge ) doesn't support Romney's claim.

kalm wrote:I thought conks liked globalization.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:I thought conks liked globalization.

Nah, in our political climate, both parties have done away with economic common sense and think we can just "turn off" globalization or think it can be ignored. I mean, we should be able to tell that poor schmuck in China that he has to go back to wondering if he'll have enough food to stave off starvation each day so that we in America can feel like it's the 1950's again, you know, when everything was fantastic.

CID1990 wrote:Ironic how some people loathe America for being meddlesome, but start talking about pulling back and then the jokes about China starving and the 1950s start coming out.

We do not have to be the 20 tit sow of the world community. Let some of those better countries like Russia and Brazil and Germany start pitching in. Heck all we need to do is just bring our boys home. WWII and the Cold War are over, and we are not interested in keeping up with China anyway.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Nah, in our political climate, both parties have done away with economic common sense and think we can just "turn off" globalization or think it can be ignored. I mean, we should be able to tell that poor schmuck in China that he has to go back to wondering if he'll have enough food to stave off starvation each day so that we in America can feel like it's the 1950's again, you know, when everything was fantastic.

Oh...got it. It's like the "shining city on the hill" thing. We're so damn generous that we decided to ship off national resources and manufacturing elsewhere in order to bring them up to speed. And we did it out of sheer atltuism!

Yeah, **** Adam Smith.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh...got it. It's like the "shining city on the hill" thing. We're so damn generous that we decided to ship off national resources and manufacturing elsewhere in order to bring them up to speed. And we did it out of sheer atltuism!

Yeah, **** Adam Smith.

Of course we didn't do it because we were altruistic, who would ever think that? We did it because it made sense to do it and it still does today. The difference now is we don't seem to want to work hard to be successful in the global marketplace and would rather go back to a time when we would be successful simply because the rest of the world was 1)dirt poor and uneducated or 2) still reeling from the devastating effects of a world war in their midst. The English weren't successful in trying to contain the knowledge of the Industrial Revolution by closing their borders to emmigration in the 1800's and we were never going to be successful in closing our doors (or going all Hawley-Smoot as you've adovcated) and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist or that they will kow-tow to whatever we demand. Face it, there are no easy answers out there no matter how fondly you look on the past. Innovate, work hard, and do things that others can't do, and you'll succeed. If you don't someone else will.