My "Fact Check" Trouble
As anyone that follows this blog knows, I am a big fan of Annenberg's Political Fact Check.
The information is good information. They are very fair in the treatment of issues.
Hence, I'm a bit puzzled - only a bit :) - at yesterday's installment that was an analysis of a Kerry ad that lacked any facts to check.
I find this only a bit odd. The critique of the ad states that the ad: "offers a string of glittering general statements without a single specific factual claim."
Okay, so why did this ad fall under Fact Check's watchful eye?
The most rational armchair analysis of Fact Check's analysis, is that while Bush has arguably run the most negative campaign in history to this point, Kerry has maintained a relatively high-road approach - and it seems to be working.
I can think of other, partisan reasons why Fact Check would use phrases such as "empty oratory" and "some of the ad's statements -- like hydrogen itself -- are lighter than air," but similar if less pithy language was used to describe three early Bush ads.
Bush's "steady leadership in times of change" ad caused me to reflect on exactly on what Bush's weakest point is; simply that he sets the course, and stays the course, regardless of new realities.
Steadyness, in Bush's case, could be seen as a euphemism for rigidity in thinking, dogmatism and or inability for 'big picture' thinking. I'll let you my dear, gentle reader draw your own conclusions.
I think that Fact Check needs to stick to what it does best. If they want to comment on opinion and generalities, then the phrase 'fact check' becomes meaningless.
I know that's being harsh, but I think it is also correct.
From WAY outside the Beltway..pure bs
The information is good information. They are very fair in the treatment of issues.
Hence, I'm a bit puzzled - only a bit :) - at yesterday's installment that was an analysis of a Kerry ad that lacked any facts to check.
I find this only a bit odd. The critique of the ad states that the ad: "offers a string of glittering general statements without a single specific factual claim."
Okay, so why did this ad fall under Fact Check's watchful eye?
The most rational armchair analysis of Fact Check's analysis, is that while Bush has arguably run the most negative campaign in history to this point, Kerry has maintained a relatively high-road approach - and it seems to be working.
I can think of other, partisan reasons why Fact Check would use phrases such as "empty oratory" and "some of the ad's statements -- like hydrogen itself -- are lighter than air," but similar if less pithy language was used to describe three early Bush ads.
Bush's "steady leadership in times of change" ad caused me to reflect on exactly on what Bush's weakest point is; simply that he sets the course, and stays the course, regardless of new realities.
Steadyness, in Bush's case, could be seen as a euphemism for rigidity in thinking, dogmatism and or inability for 'big picture' thinking. I'll let you my dear, gentle reader draw your own conclusions.
I think that Fact Check needs to stick to what it does best. If they want to comment on opinion and generalities, then the phrase 'fact check' becomes meaningless.
I know that's being harsh, but I think it is also correct.
From WAY outside the Beltway..pure bs
No comments :
Post a Comment