factchecking the debate

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

What’s the bottom line? FactCheck.org is a LEFT-BIASED organization that has sold itself as “Politically NEUTRAL” to America’s voters and media personnel.

The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.

Does the LEFT have no conscience at all?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts

http://ivn.us/2014/07/11/how-reliabl...check-sources/

FactCheck.org’s reliability is due in part to its somewhat inconvenient yet also wise refusal to assign simple ratings along a continuous spectrum: it does not summarily declare statements “True” or “False,” but instead provides detailed analysis explaining their incorrectness or incompleteness and lets the reader reach his or her own conclusion.

Critics from all sides have pointed out the bias and editorial nature of some of PolitiFact’s and Kessler’s purportedly objective verdicts.


from all sides...interesting.

and how ironic, free republic making accusations of bias.
if you look backward in this thread, you'll find their (and politifacts) take on the dem debate.

one other thing.....i know some like to 'shoot the messenger' so as to attempt to ignore the message. but, in disparaging that particular messenger (factcheck.org) did you read their debate write up? were they wrong on any of it?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://ivn.us/2014/07/11/how-reliabl...check-sources/

FactCheck.org’s reliability is due in part to its somewhat inconvenient yet also wise refusal to assign simple ratings along a continuous spectrum: it does not summarily declare statements “True” or “False,” but instead provides detailed analysis explaining their incorrectness or incompleteness and lets the reader reach his or her own conclusion.

Critics from all sides have pointed out the bias and editorial nature of some of PolitiFact’s and Kessler’s purportedly objective verdicts.


from all sides...interesting.

and how ironic, free republic making accusations of bias.
if you look backward in this thread, you'll find their (and politifacts) take on the dem debate.

one other thing.....i know some like to 'shoot the messenger' so as to attempt to ignore the message. but, in disparaging that particular messenger (factcheck.org) did you read their debate write up? were they wrong on any of it?

I get the real facts from Faux News ...unfair and unbalanced

[Danzig]

I knew huckster was a charlatan snake oil salesman... So is Carson.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-well-...-carson-denies

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

I get the real facts from Faux News ...unfair and unbalanced

It's only biased when you disagree?

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rnc-suspe...bc-news-debate


so, complaints that three hours is too long, and now complaints about 'gotcha' questions.

um...these candidates do realize that they're trying to get a job that is 24/7, and is nothing but gotcha moments, right?
ridiculous.

[Danzig]

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/fac...onomic-debate/

[OldDog]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...cratic-debate/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...bate/75803260/