Just The Facts
By Mitch Berg
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?
August 9th, 2010 at 6:51 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mitchpberg and mitchpberg, Christopher Truscott. Christopher Truscott said: Damn lying front groups. Glad GOP's pure. RT @mitchpberg Media knows – @ABetterMN is lying & a Dayton front: http://bit.ly/b31fTW #mn2010 […]
August 9th, 2010 at 10:23 am
those conservative tools the Annenberg Foundation
Heh. Sarcasm tag should be inserted.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:06 am
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.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:22 am
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.
August 9th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
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.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
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!