Based on recent research, Politifact’s “fact-checkers” are more interested in ensuring President Biden’s adversaries are made accountable than the White House itself.
As reported by the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters, 58 Politifact reports were written during Biden’s first 20 months in office to fact-check the president; meanwhile, a startling 338 articles were written to fact-check Biden’s adversaries.
“Fact-Checkers” Favor Biden
According to NewsBusters senior editor Tim Graham, “on average, there were 5.8 fact checks of Biden opponents for every one of the president’s.”
Politifact’s website states its “fundamental values are independence, openness, objectivity, extensive reporting, and forthright writing,” and asserts that “fact-checking media is at the heart of PolitiFact.”
According to conservative strategist Chris Barron, however, that’s not what’s occurring right now. According to the MRC study, Biden’s rivals face particularly severe treatment.
Have you noticed that fact checkers haven't worked a day since Biden took office?
— The Win Doctor (@Windoctorx) September 23, 2022
Since Politifact launched in 2007, Biden has only received six “Pants on Fire” fact-checks, according to the MRC. William A. Jacobson, a lecturer at Cornell Law School, said Politifact resembles the classic “broken clock.”
“Fact-Checkers” Can’t Be Trusted
Jason Rantz, a broadcaster of a conservative radio show, thinks many fact-checking organizations simply function as spin doctors for Democratic politicians.
According to Rantz of Fox News Digital, “it permits media outlets to suggest Republicans are liars and Democrats are the victims of unscrupulous conservatives.”
Biased much? Media ‘fact checkers’ find no Biden lies https://t.co/9eja7n3kF4
— MIMSYPICKTRIS 🇺🇸🧣 (@Picktris66) September 29, 2022
Jeffrey McCall, a journalism professor at DePauw University, concurs there’s “definitely” a bias in the realm of fact-checking.
He thinks Politifact’s fact-checks are useless for policing public discourse because they “show such little rigor” in evaluating Biden’s claims and assertions.
“The head of the democratic world is the one person on this planet who, if anybody, requires thorough fact-checking.”
“The correctness of a president’s statements is crucial since whatever he or she says has the power to change the course of history,” said McCall. On the opposite side, while necessary, fact-checking a presidential opponent is less crucial generally.
Politifact is not the only one in the endeavor. CNN’s Daniel Dale puts fact-checking the president as his top priority in his Twitter bio, but this is by no means his sole area of interest.
He just spent three months without debunking the president’s claims and he frequently publishes pieces.
In January, Fox News Digital noted a six-week gap in Dale’s fact checks of Biden and noted he disregarded the president’s erroneous statements in a significant address on voting rights in Georgia.
McCall pointed out that a president’s statements on any issue of public concern will be heard by many more people than any criticism from uninformed individuals.
Therefore, he argued, fact-checkers who are genuinely concerned with establishing the truth in the country’s discourse ought to scrutinize presidents more. They should care less about detractors yelling from the pews.
An inquiry for comments was not immediately answered by the Poynter Institute.
This article appeared in The Patriot Brief and has been published here with permission.
