https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/27/instagram-...
Whether or not the U.S. is actually in a recession might still be up for debate. But I’d argue that it’s pretty clear what’s happening to the credibility of online “fact-checking” sources.
Impartiality generally seems to be a very difficult subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_poli...
PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.”
That's not a point of bias unless you can prove Republicans lie less.
Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often.
Agreed, the statements that Politifact chooses to cover are contentious and have high visibility. In the specific set of data points that were used to evaluate Politifact, a larger percentage of the statements made by Republicans are classified lies and more harshly (see article below from 2011). This proves nothing about the overall number of lies made by individuals within the Republican and Democrat parties. There are numerous ways this sort of situation within Politifact can come about even after excluding bias from Politifact. For example, a unique time period in which a small number of individuals who identify as Republicans are independently making more outrageous claims which skews the result. Or a time period in which a specific talking point (generally proven false) is being pushed as a narrative by a portion of a party but not a majority of the party (e.g., the 2020 election was stolen, or Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections).
Point being, reaching the conclusion that Republicans lie more via Politifact or the findings of the original study is a fallacy. And reaching the conclusion that Politifact is biased is also a fallacy.
The original article here: https://archive.ph/Drhw
I know plenty of Republicans who think Democrats lie more and I know plenty of Democrats who think Republicans lie more. But I wouldn't justify a false compromise through anecdotal evidence.
Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107441099/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107534577/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
They both suggest that a systemic problem is, simply systemic -- it crosses multiple institutions and it is broadly accepted. One way to judge the completeness of the corruption of the system is to look at what is missing: how many groups are not fighting against corruption. How many groups are bought into the system? Obviously the problem is less systemic in places where powerful institutions are actively fighting against corruption.
I do concede I should have been clearer in my original comment.
> [T]he definition read by Siri [...] includes an important word that the narrator glosses over, namely "generally." In other words, the one-sentence definition Siri provided is not a closed answer. It’s a general guidance that includes exceptions.
PolitiFact does discuss why the NBER definition is more nuanced than the 2-quarter heuristic, but this is mere exposition behind their main point.
First 5 seconds of the video: "So the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession"
Content of the video: Uses siri's definition which states a recession is "...generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters." The poster ignores the 'generally' when comparing to the White House website which states that the two quarter definition is not official. Followed by a rap battle meme.
Obvious intent of video: Paints a narrative that the white house is changing definitions of words to fit their needs.
Title of the politifact article: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession” "
Content of the politifact article: The white house didn't change the definition of recession.
Reality: The White House didn't change the definition of recession.
So what exactly is the credibility issue here?
That claim is false, and just propaganda. The WH may be using an official definition which is convenient for them, vs. some other that is also acceptable. That may be true.
But they arent changing the definition of anything. Theyre actually using the standard one for the relevant area of expertise.
If there’s an article out there in which PolitiFact debunked (let alone flagged) claims of, say, “transitory inflation”, I’ll stand corrected.
It sure as heck seemed like you were all of one comment ago. I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!"
But now it appears that PolitiFact was not doing that at all, but was instead taking issue with the claim that the White House was "changing the definition" of recession, and now you're saying you're not defending that claim and falling back to unrelated generalities.
So now I have no idea what your original point was supposed to be. Is it the White House changing definitions is false and easily debunkable but supports some broader point that you believe is more important? And is that what we were supposed to understand from your first comment? This is just checking every box for being a bad argument.
I understood GP to mean that it's a bit strange to have random groups define fake news or not based on deviations from a specific dictionary. If my dictionary says recession is two quarters, and yours says it's three, we can't use just this to decide that something is fake news, and it's especially dangerous to make arbitrary decision on which dictionary is actually 'not fake'.
I guess I'm the 1 / 1000 and actually have trouble understanding your arguments.
What exactly is difficult to understand about that?
The fact the rest of the world has always used a different definition (and still does) is moot.
It also follows up a quote of the definition used by the video with a statement that they’ve flagged it. To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging.
> To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging.
The article is also titled 'No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”' To me, that's a clear indication of what the most important (and valid) reason for flagging was.
Thank you for taking the time to look at this, as the commenter had led me to believe PolitiFact was arguing about a totally different claim.
In this case, the more accurate statement would be that the Whitehouse is changing the definition that they use. But they present the Twitter lowest common denominator of discourse as the "fact" to be checked.
I mean, is politifact misbehaving here when clearly, everyone who's not read their article has actually the same misunderstanding about the issue? That does seem to warrant their view, right?
The reason we care about a recession is that it's a recession. The "2-quaters" definition isn't what we care about, right?
It's extremely odd to accuse the WH of misusing definitions to defend a position both consistent with the mainstream technical definition *AND* the spirit of all possible definitions.
People still clinging to this criticism of the WH seem not understand why this criticism is false. It's both false *and* its misleading. T
Both the video and authors of the article use the same definition. The article notes that the video "includes an important word that the narrator glosses over" (hint its the word 'generally').
> This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false
Using a different definition is not their justification (partly because you just made this connection up). They ruled the post as false because it stated the White House was changing the definition of 'recession' when it was not.
> flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation.
The intent of the video is clearly to indicate the White House is changing definitions to suit their narrative. In reality this was not the case. The effect is discrediting or undermining the trust in the white house. If you think this isn't potentially harmful, that might speak more to your political inclinations than the objective reality.
> The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities.
Now this is ironic.