It's kind of ironic to misrepresent a judgement of truthfullness.

Yeah, I love that an organization that evaluates truth wanted "to have some fun."

Is there any way Abrams could have squeezed any LESS useful information out of that interview? The public would have been better served by looking at the two bar charts for two minutes!

The public would have been better served by watching a test pattern instead of Abrams'show.

The public would have been better served by looking at the two bar charts for two minutes!

But no one had those bar charts.  MMFA made them.  Adair probably didn't even know the cumulative results of his own fact checking work.  He was speaking off the top of his head.  Most embarrasing for a "fact-checker".

 

 

Ya gotta love that Liberal Media. ;)

You mean to say that 'he said, she said' doesn't always give a fair representation of who's telling the truth and who's not?

Well, you could have knocked FoxNews down with a feather! They always thought it did!

Many rightie posters here think it does - they'll claim that both parties are guilty of some offensive behavior, yet they can't quite provide any evidence that it's true. They'll say that MSNBC is just as bad as FoxNews, but when you ask them to present evidence that MSNBC is anywhere close to as extreme as FoxNews, they can't provide that evidence.

The evidence of PolitiFact that shows that 2 of John McCain's ads got 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ratings and none of Obama's got that same rating should've given this guy a clue.

Someone needs to get him a new 'thinker', apparently, because the 'thinker' he's got is faulty.

One of the stunning things I see from those graphs, besides the number of really flawed ads and attacks that McCain has made, versus Obama, is the number of positive, wholly true statements Obama has made - twice as many as McCain. The comparison is stark.

But this guy says that they're seeing less truth and more falsehoods earlier than usual in a campaign? Why didn't he just admit that it was a result of the negative, untrue ads and attacks from John McCain?

It seems that the "Pants on Fire" awards...

would be the most watched.  These are egregious, outright lies from Grampah McCain.

Abrams didn't even ask about those?  Didn't want  to upset his corporate masters I guess.

I had great hopes for Abrams. After all, he went after Karl Rove pretty heavily over the Don Siegleman case. Unfortunately, Abrams has shown a reluctance to pursue really sticky scandals involving the Iraq War. When a Huffington Post reporter tried to talk about the revelation that the Pentagon had planted pro-war uniformed spokesmen on the talk shows before the invasion, Abrams refused to let him talk about it.

This is not unique to Abrams, of course. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we were dragged into Iraq on a skid greased with lies, no one in the MSM seems willing to discuss it. This is the same bunch of talking heads that filled countless hours bloviating about Bill Clinton's BJ lie. I just don't get it. You'd think it would be the biggest story of the decade.

What these people characterize as "inaccurate claims in public statements and political ads", seem more to be statements (and ads) that say "we don't believe in the other guy", or "we don't believe his promises"... it doesn't seem like these things are about what is accurate or not, or what is fact or truth, but are merely about NO CONFIDENCE in the other guy: so what else is new in an American political campaign?

I have my own appraisal of the two campaigns so far: no, I do not think them negative (like every pundit and media hack is trying to convince you of), I think the two campaigns so far to be as EMPTY VACUOUS INANE INSUBSTANTIAL and DEVOID of actual National Policy ideas or discussions, as they could possibly be...

With one exception.

Sen. Obama delivered a 38-minute speech at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center on July 15... here's a link to a text of that speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html

It stands sort of alone this summer, as saying something in public that is important and substantial and true... everything else has been mostly just vague warm and fuzzy talk, flavored strongly with NO CONFIDENCE and NO BELIEF in the other guy and in the things he says: so what else is new? 

Don't you all understand.  It's called being fair and balanced.  You have to say both sides are lying even if your data suggests otherwise.

Although Media Matters is right in correcting Adair's falsehood, Politifact is an excellent fact-checking website. i like it better than factcheck.org because Factcheck.org only posts about one item every 2 days, while Politifact publishes 1 or more per day.

Once again, Truth eludes the Truthseeker.

That's why he's still seeking; he has never found it, and wouldn't recognize it if it walked up to him and introduced itself.