Some dude from The Weekly Standard and another guy from the Washington Post discuss the value of political fact checking on Talk of the Nation. The highlight comes from the Weekly Standard dude who is, like, all anti-fact checking and shit:
HEMINGWAY: Well, there’s a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011.
And they found that of the 98 statements that PolitiFact had rated false, 74 of them were by Republicans. Now, I can think of a number of reasons why you might cite one party over the other more, in terms of, you know, who was telling the truth and who wasn’t. But doing that at a rate of three to one strikes me as awfully suspicious, particularly when, if you delve into the specifics of the statements that they cited, there’s all kinds of problematic things contained there, whereas they are, you know, like you’re mentioned, they’re often fact-checking opinions and providing counter-arguments to, you know, stated opinions.
Huh. Well, Mark, maybe the problem isn’t the fact-checking methodology, but the fact that YOUR PARTY FUCKING LIES ALL THE FUCKING TIME???
Of course, this is the same dude who later said that Sarah Palin’s claim of death panels wasn’t technically a lie, so I think it’s clear that he technically lives in a different universe than the rest of us.