Tevi — I’m not sure I agree that this news says much that’s good about “fact-checking” sites. While I support Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms, and I don’t doubt that Democrats lied about them from time to time, the site does not make a good case:
— They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare — or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.
— They used harsh terms such as “end” and “kill” when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.
— They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.
“Ignor[ing]” something may have the effect of presenting an incomplete picture, but it’s not a “lie,” and official Democratic propaganda does not purport to offer a complete picture. The second point is considerably stronger — people who don’t follow politics could have gotten the impression that the government would no longer help seniors with their health care at all, and “privatize” and “voucherize” are far more precise words than “end” — but even these claims are well within the bounds of normal political discourse: The Ryan plan is a deep, serious reform — it ends some of the program’s major features, and if traditional-Medicare supporters see those features as the core of the program, it’s fair for them to say it ends the program. And regarding point three, as Matthew Yglesias points out, only the elderly are eligible for Medicare, so it makes sense to use the elderly in ads, even if today’s elderly aren’t the ones affected.
It’s true enough that Democratic ads are a bad place to go for a clear, unbiased account of what the Ryan plan would do. But I don’t think any of these examples rise to the level of “lie,” much less “Lie of the Year.”
"The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills." REALLY? Is THIS credible? Is this a joke?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. These "fact checkers" add nothing if all they do is affirm that blatantly misleading propaganda splits hairs in a slippery enough way to get a pass from fact checkers.
The clear intent and likely effect of the Democratic propaganda was to persuade older people that Republicans would deprive them of access to health care, period. I think such a fraud deserves to be called a lie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this points out the limitations of "fact-checking". It's hard to "fact-check" statements that have an element of opinion to them. I certainly see your point about how a Dem could interpret Ryan's plan as "ending" Medicare. However, I have to side with PolitiFact here and make the case that the Dems were being purposefully deceitful. If someone said to me that the GOP wanted to "end" or "kill" Medicare, I would think they are eliminating the program. Ryan is reforming the program, drastically, but he is not eliminating it, like say, Ron Paul would probably do. While we can argue over nuance, the point is that the Dems are being very purposefully deceitful when it comes to talking about Ryan's plan, even if they have managed to convince themselves to drink their own kool-aid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePurposeful misstatements and commissions in order to mislead and manipulate the judgement of others is a lie. To do these things in an attempt to gain something (such as a win for their side) from these misstatements and omissions is unethical. It is unethical because our republican form of government by the people rests on the people being able to make informed decisions. To be informed means they need facts and truths. When one side or another engages in unethical behaviour it undermines the people's ability to make informed decisions.
Yes, it is the citizens' responsibility to seek information and to stay informed but when the it is made increasingly difficult to determine fact from fiction from opinion and libel, it is near impossible for an average citizen to know what to believe and what to consider in his decision making process.
While we are free to express our opinions, thoughts and ideas, it really does become unethical to trade in disinformation generated by persons who know better but do it anyway for advantage.
They lie for a purpose and that purpose is not to help anyone but themselves and their cronies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegrrrrr...I meant to say "omissions" NOT "commissions."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. These "fact-check" sites often take what's normal political discourse and try to turn it into a discussion of fact and fiction when what they're really doing is trying to rule on opinions and how people interpret the meaning of words.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you look at the specific examples of ads that were run, many of them are clearly deceptive (talking about how seniors will have to pay more for medicare, not "future seniors" or any clarifying that it's not seniors *now*).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI abhor these sort of "which party lies more" arguments, but I think the first point is weak.
If I accuse someone of murdering another, and I know the supposed victim is still alive, then I have lied, not just failed to present an inconvenient detail.
The question is whether the exclusion of current or imminent beneficiaries goes to the essence of the claim.
It does seem that the claim was made with the intended effect of scaring current and imminent beneficiaries moreso than future beneficiaries.
In general, I think we would have a better public discourse if we held ourselves to a standard that excludes things like the Mediscare talk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe term I heard most from Democrats was that the Ryan plan would end Medicare "as we know it" which of course is 100% true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn that medicare is bankrupt, destroying the budget, and emperils the nation, you are correct. Medicare "as we know it" - i.e. bankrupt, destroying the budgeet, and emperiling the nation - would end. Of course, that is like saying a cancer cure would "end cancer treatment as we know it." Why yes, making medicare solvent is "changing medicare as we know it." But that's due to the system being changed SO IT CAN ACTUALLY WORK...for ALL of us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is a lie, but an untruth. Some are small. Some are white. The mendacity of a lie goes to the intent. There is a point where propaganda becomes a lie. The intent here is clealry to mislead. An uneducated or perhaps simply an ingorant man would look at their propaganda and understand that Ryan's plan included leaving a significant portion of elderly individuals with no means from Medicare to buy health care. At the very best the propaganda is scurrilous. At worst it is a da*n lie!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, but it allows them to say "see, we aren't biased, we called mediscare a lie!" Kind of like the old, I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are (insert race here).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMilt Shook at the PCTC blog: "Anybody Wanna Buy Our "Mansion"? PolitiFact Surrenders Its Credibility" reinforces the suspicion that PolitiFact has been infiltrated by stealth partisans.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe lie of the left was that Medicare would be destroyed by the Ryan plan. Clearly the Ryan plan would change Medicare (mostly in a positive way) but it would not destroy it. The point of the "Lie of the Year" is that something is a "lie". You seem to think that because the left can make the case for substantial changes to Medicare that saying "it would be destroyed" is not a lie. Very weak case.
It's also amusing to watch the left squeal about this. Some are claiming that changing Medicare from a single payer system to state run voucher system amounts to destroying it in a definitional way. Sort of the way they claim that changing marriage from one man and one woman to whoever and whatever amounts to destroying marriage in a definitional way. What? They don't make that argument. Whatever!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills."
Really? A *stripper*? So, his medical bills can't have been too high, then, right?
And, *no*, Robert, even if it eliminates one provision that you think is key, it is still a *lie* to proclaim that it "ends" or "kills" the program, if it doesn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, providing an incomplete picture is most definitely "lying". The online Oxford Dictionary defines a lie thusly: an intentionally false statement. If you omit facts that you know are pertinent, then it is a lie. That was most certainly true in the honor code to which I was subject in college, and could get me a court martial when I was in the military.
The core of medicare is an entitlement to health insurance after the age of 65. The core of medicare is retirees having an insurance card to show a doctor. That will not end.
There will still be a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid administering a government program that ultimately covers the costs of senior health care. By adjusting voucher levels and squeezing the insurance companies, rather than squeezing providers, it will probably more effective at doing so.
Ultimately, "The Republican's voted to end Medicare" is a lie.
And when Time names its "Man of the Year", they don't rate them on some sort of masculinity scale, they rate them by prevalence and influence. I'm still not sure if its the biggest lie of the year, but it is one of the most important lies of the year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm 58 years old, and presently purchase my health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield, a private insurance company. When I'm 65 or so, presumably I can continue doing the same...or I can take advantage of Medicare, which I have paid into for decades and which is a publicly-administered and funded program. If the Ryan plan was in effect now, I would NOT have the right to use a public program, but would instead receive a government subsidy to buy private insurance like I am doing now. Calling that "Medicare" is calling an apple an orange. It's not the same thing at all. Such a drastic change is, in effect, killing Medicare as we know it and substituting in its place a private system. The Dems certainly exaggerated--they are pols, after all--but that exaggeration is by no means the biggest lie of the year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLets say I go to bed tonight with a brand new, fully loaded Mustang in my driveway. During the night, someone steals my Mustang, attaches Mustang emblems to a Pinto, and leaves the Pinto in my driveway. According the Politifact's logic, I'd be lying if I called the police and reported my Mustang stolen, since there's a car sitting in my driveway with the emblems that say "Mustang".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery poor analogy. A better one would be along these lines:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou park a Mustang in your driveway. Overnight, someone comes in and changes the tires and replaces the radio. You cannot call the police the next morning, and tell them that your Mustang was stolen, all that you can say is that someone changed it.
In fact, the new tires and new radio might be an improvement, although they also might make it worse, at least in your opinion. But you cannot say that your Mustang is gone.