![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/09\/Facts-Header.jpg\" "\\"Facts-Header\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nIf you Google the feature, one might be forgiven for thinking the feature should be named “MPR’s Michele Bachmann Bureau”. \u00a0That’d be unfair; Poligraph reporter Catherine Richert does spread some of the fact-checking love around among parties.<\/p>\n
But I do seriously wonder what a pol has to do to get a statement picked up by Poligraph.<\/p>\n
Huge Gaping Factual Hole, Ready For Occupancy<\/strong><\/p>\n For example, I’ve wondered for years why Richert’s crew have never once checked up on Heather Martens, who has yet to speak her first significant truthful thing about the gun control issue. \u00a0 This blog has spent years shredding everything Martens has ever said on the public stage<\/a>.<\/p>\n It’s a big issue to me, naturally. \u00a0If I were a real <\/em>cynic, I’d say it’s because MPR has invested some of its own credibility in Martens, airing an op-ed<\/a> of hers in which every single one of her fifteen factual assertions – every one – was untrue<\/a>.<\/p>\n But Martens isn’t an elected official? \u00a0Okie-Dokey – Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom is an elected official, and every single word he wrote about last years’ “Stand Your Ground” bill over the past four years<\/a> was a lie. \u00a0Every single word<\/a>. \u00a0 And he’s elected, ya? \u00a0 And both of them had Governor Dayton’s ear last session, when he vetoed the “Stand Your Ground” bill, which had passed with a bipartisan majority in the legislature.<\/p>\n Is it because MPR’s target demo doesn’t care about the issue? \u00a0I could almost understand it if that were the rationale. \u00a0But I don’t suspect a news organization would get behind that as an official alibi, do you?<\/p>\n Checking The Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n So I wrote Richert over the weekend. \u00a0She emailed me back bright and early Tuesday morning. \u00a0Since I didn’t specify anything would be on the record (it was late), I’ll paraphrase; she referred me to the “About Poligraph<\/a>” page, and noted the feature’s ground rules involve picking one statement from each party, each week (or, at times, two from one party one week, and two from the other the next).<\/p>\n The “About” page also notes:<\/p>\n PoliGraph puts the findings into short, clear explanations accompanied with a rating — accurate, misleading, false or inconclusive.<\/p>\n – Accurate: These claims are entirely or mostly true. They include important details and are supported by the facts.<\/p>\n -Misleading: These statements that leave out key information, are exaggerated, or have been taken out of context.<\/p>\n – False: These claims are not true or misleading to the point of being false.<\/p>\n – Inconclusive: This rating typically applies to projections or estimates. While such claims could be true under certain circumstances, more information is needed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, that explains a few things, anyway.<\/p>\n One might hope that this next bit, however…:<\/p>\n If this reminds you of PolitiFact.com, the Pultizer Prize-winning from the St. Petersburg Times, you’d be right. We know good ideas when we see them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n …does not. \u00a0The political bias of Politifact<\/a> (and those of the Pulitzer committee<\/a>, as well) are a matter worth discussion; if those are “good ideas”, MPR News may see it; I do not.<\/p>\n More about the “Fact-checking” industry tomorrow.<\/p>\n Anyway – that brings us to my question from last Tuesday.<\/p>\n Selection Bias?<\/strong><\/p>\n Yesterday, we looked briefly<\/a> at “Poligraph”‘s take on an Amy Klobuchar claim to bipartisanship during her debate with Kurt Bills. \u00a0 \u00a0While Klobuchar’s statement was accurate as far as it went – the numbers literally supported the exact letter by letter intent of the Senator’s statement – Richert’s “fact check” focused to exclusion on the numbers, while ignoring the larger context Klobuchar’s statement seems to have been meant to hide. \u00a0This earned “Poligraph” a rating of “Cherry-PIcked”<\/p>\n That was their weekly “Democrat” fact-check.<\/p>\n But today’s installment will go back to this past Tuesday’s installment, in which Poligraph hit its self-imposed weekly “GOP” quota. \u00a0There, we looked at the “Poligraph” “fact-check” of a Tony Hernandez statement<\/a> linking the bank bailouts to the unemployment rate. \u00a0While Tony oversimplified the issue, there is considerable debate about the\u00a0question, and Richert herself focused excessively on refuting Hernandez’ words and ignored the broader context of the remark. \u00a0\u00a0Calling\u00a0Hernandez’ statement “Misleading” rather than “Oversimplified” earned “Poligraph” a rating of “Obtuse”.<\/p>\n But I wondered: \u00a0if “Poligraph’s” quota is one article per party per week, why pick the fairly innocuous Klobuchar quote about her record of co-sponsored bills? \u00a0The claim was almost as innocuous as the Senator herself (although it covered, I maintain<\/a>, a much more important context).<\/p>\n But let’s go back to another moment from the State Fair debate.<\/p>\n Check out this segment from the Hernandez-McCollum debate:<\/p>\n