Just thought I’d kick back and remind you all that after two months spent feverishly debunking the many, many lies of “A Better Minnesota”, and pointing out what the regional mainstream media wouldn’t – that A4aBM is largely a front for Dayton family money – the word is finally getting out.
Last week Pat Kessler basically reached the same conclusions that I did over A4aBM’s funding.
And late last week, Factcheck.org – a production of those conservative tools the Annenberg Foundation – basically agreed that you can tell Alliance for a Better Minnesota is lying when their lips are moving, in an article that excoriates the PAC for its mangling of the truth.
When you want actual facts, who ya gonna call first?
Pingback: Tweets that mention Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Just The Facts -- Topsy.com
those conservative tools the Annenberg Foundation
Heh. Sarcasm tag should be inserted.
I applaud Mitch for including factchec.org. They are equally hard on the right and the left, and they provide a pretty thorough list of who and what they use as their fact checking sources.
I’m guessing you didn’t follow the link, Kermit, to see what they had to say.
DG,
Kerm’s comment was re my own sarcastic reference to Annenberg as “conservative”. While Factcheck seems to make a fairly credible effort to be balanced and impartial, Annenberg is general considered aligned to the center-left.
Which doesn’t mean Factcheck can’t be balanced and fair; it just means they need to be scrutinized like any other source of information.
My comment went to Kermit focusing more on snarking at Annenberg, while ignoring what they fact checked. If factcheck IS as you seem to agree fairly balanced and impartial, isn’t the perception of the Annenberg political bias a bit irrelevant here? If anythning it would seem to give greater weight to their findings, not less. So the sarcasm seems a bit out of place.
If factcheck IS as you seem to agree fairly balanced and impartial, isn’t the perception of the Annenberg political bias a bit irrelevant here?
Other than as a means of reinforcing the injunction to trust no institutional media before verifying? Sure. Unfortunately, the injunction is of overriding importance.
If anythning it would seem to give greater weight to their findings, not less.
It would seem to make them statements against perceived (and admittedly possibly misperceived) institutional interest, yes.
the sarcasm seems a bit out of place.
Nope. Annenberg is not a conservative tool. Sarcasm tag justified.
{gavel bangs loudly}
Next case!