{"id":46886,"date":"2014-09-03T12:00:04","date_gmt":"2014-09-03T17:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=46886"},"modified":"2014-10-19T16:19:49","modified_gmt":"2014-10-19T21:19:49","slug":"the-client-is-obviously-my-client","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=46886","title":{"rendered":"The Client Is Obviously My Client"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, I lit up MPR’s “Poligraph” feature for checking <\/a>the “accuracy” of an utterly subjective bit of political smack-talk by GOP Gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Last Friday?\u00a0 Poligraph used <\/em>subjectivity to “fact-check” GOP 8th CD candidate Stewart Mills.\u00a0<\/p>\n

To be fair, Catherine Richert did smack down one of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee’s more risible claims<\/a>, that Mills opposes Obamacare because he is floating on a raft of insurance industry money:<\/p>\n

To support part of its claim, the DCCC points to information collected by OpenSecrets.com, a website that tracks campaign money. The website shows Mills has taken $7,100 from the insurance industry. But that\u2019s the entire insurance industry, not just health insurance companies.<\/p>\n

\u00a0According to Mills\u2019 campaign finance records, he\u2019s gotten $1,000 from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association PAC, and that\u2019s it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

OK.\u00a0 So far so good.<\/p>\n

But this next\u00a0part?<\/p>\n

Popularity!<\/strong>:\u00a0 I suspect that if you passed a law that compelled the government to send out a $10,000 check to every citizen at Christmastime, it’d be “Popular”.\u00a0 (Or perhaps a law allowing people from small radio stations to take their pick of equipment at public radio stations).\u00a0<\/p>\n

But would “popularity” make it a good idea?\u00a0 More to the point – would opposing it be wrong because it’s “popular?”<\/p>\n

We return to Richert’s piece; as we read it, look for any objective evidence that Mills’ position is wrong:\u00a0<\/p>\n

The DCCC also claims that Mills wants to scrap popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, including a provision that prevents insurance companies from rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions and another provision that allows children to stay on their parents\u2019 plans until they turn 26.<\/p>\n

Here, the DCCC is on stronger footing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How so?<\/p>\n

Campaign spokeswoman Chloe Rockow says Mills isn\u2019t opposed to making sure young adults and those with pre-existing conditions have access to health insurance \u2013 he just thinks there are better ways of doing it.<\/p>\n

\u00a0For instance, Mills wants to strengthen privacy rules for people with pre-existing conditions and to reinstate the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association, which is a special health insurance program for people with pre-existing conditions who can\u2019t get insurance elsewhere. That program is being phased out, because those people are now get insurance through the Affordable Care Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Richert’s conclusion (with emphasis added)?:<\/p>\n

\u00a0The Verdict<\/p>\n

\u00a0…\u00a0the group is correct that Mills isn\u2019t keen on Obamacare, including two provisions that are relatively popular<\/strong> with the public.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s be clear, here:\u00a0 Richert is checking the DCCC’s statement.\u00a0 She finds half of it questionable (the insurance money), and half of it accurate (like every single Republican I can think of, Mills opposes Obamacare and\u00a0thinks we can do the same job much more efficiently by tweaking existing programs).\u00a0<\/p>\n

In other words, the DCCC says that Mills supports GOP policy?<\/p>\n

That’s not even dog bites man.\u00a0 That’s “dog sniffs dog”.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Which is fine, if journalistically a little pointless.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But Richert points out in several places that the programs that Mills would scrap are “popular”.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Why?\u00a0<\/p>\n

What earthly journalistic <\/em>difference do the programs’ “popularity” have?<\/p>\n

While Richert is correct in pointing out that the DCCC’s money claims are wrong, she’s essentially pointing out in her second point that the DCCC is, indeed, pointing out correctly that Mills is campaigning as a Republican, with what looks like a little gratuitous reassurance to MPR’s DFL-leaning audience thrown in for good measure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So I give this episode of “Poligraph” a grade of “Huh?”\u00a0<\/p>\n

With all due respect to MPR’s News\u00a0department (and, stereotypes aside, I’ve tried to pay it where it’s been due, as with the exception of everything Keri Miller touches it\u00a0often has been), it seems that “Poligraph” is explaining the obvious.\u00a0<\/p>\n

UPDATE:\u00a0 Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring <\/em>also covered this bit <\/a>earlier in the week, and has unsurprisingly similar conclusions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week, I lit up MPR’s “Poligraph” feature for checking the “accuracy” of an utterly subjective bit of political smack-talk by GOP Gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson.\u00a0 Last Friday?\u00a0 Poligraph used subjectivity to “fact-check” GOP 8th CD candidate Stewart Mills.\u00a0 To be fair, Catherine Richert did smack down one of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee’s more […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,230],"tags":[318],"class_list":["post-46886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media","category-the-fact-check-scam","tag-mngov-2014"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=46886"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46886\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48238,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46886\/revisions\/48238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=46886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=46886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=46886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}